Interview on radio show Free Energy Quest tonight

October 9, 2014

Tonight, Thursday October 9, I’ll be interviewed by Sterling Allan on his radio show Free Energy Quest, at 3 pm PST, midnight Central European Time (CET). You can listen live here. We will be talking about my book An Impossible Invention, and about the recent third party report on the E-Cat.

@mark hazelton
Very funny. Using a quote out of context is simply lying.

Has everyone seen Aldo Proia’s summary of his recent interactions with Rossi? It reveals Rossi to be a total duplicitous liar and clearly a fraud who fails to uphold contractual obligations, most probably because he can’t. It’s quite an eye opener. I would love to read Mats’ reaction to this:

“Mass generation via chiral symmetry breaking and the
Higgs becomes irrelevant for two independent reasons.
First, in the absence of the weak force there is no need for
massive gauge bosons. And second, the chiral impedance
is scale invariant, cannot communicate energy but rather
only quantum phase, cannot deliver mass.

Similarly, mass generation in QCD via dynamic chiral
symmetry breaking is seen to be not possible in light of
the scale invariance of chiral impedances.

In the impedance approach the origin of mass is the
energy in the fields of the coupled modes represented in
the impedance network and connected by impedance mis-
matches. The calculated mass of the electron is correct
at the nine signi cant digit limit of experimental accu-
racy, the muon at a part in one thousand, the pion at two
parts in ten thousand, and the nucleon at seven parts in
one hundred thousand[126].”

This says that there is no Higgs field. The electromagnetic field condenses under the action of quantum EMF impedance to form the mass of the electron, pion, and meson. I have been postulating EMF condensation into particles as an important mechanism in LENR. This quantum impedance idea supports that belief.

Energy gain in LENR is a energy balancing and transfer process in an EMF based energy transfer mechanism.

The discovery of the “God particle” has been brought into question recently as a misidentification.

I believe that when LENR is accepted, the standard model will need a rework to get rid of the Higgs field.

I absolutely agree. Real or anonymous it is content that is relevant – i’;ve never paid any attention to anything else. And i respect anonymity.

It is just that I think, if you read back on this thread, that Fibb has some idea that he wants to break somone else’s anonymity because he does not like them – and its both hypocritical and not the behabviour of an honourable person.

H-G –

If the authors are restricted by NDA from correcting their report they could say that, and it would be a proper response, although remove much of the value from the report.

I doubt that is true since they have already stated (it is on ecat world somewhere I think) that they would modify the published report if needed to address criticism.

By “naming and shaming” all I really mean is present to them clearly, so that they understand the issue, why silence here is both contrary to the spirit of scientific investigation and thoroughly bad:

If Rossi’s stuff works (which not many here believe but it seems mats still reckons is most likely) refusal to clarify this anomaly reduces the strength of the report and therefore the amount of influence it might have in increasing funding for LENR.

If Rossi’s stuff does not work, and the whole thing is either a delusion or a scam, silence here amounts to complicity in this – perhaps not legally, i would not know – but morally.

Either way it is reprehensible unless forced on them in some way that I don’t understand.

The genuine LENR researchers (such as MFMP) are in my view most likely chasing moonbeams. But it is an honourable chase and something I have sympathy for. However wild something seems investigation is never a bad thing.

It does them no favours to have the sort of hype that Rossi has engendered based on a erroneous testing.

An NDA may contain a clause with this limitation: “to use the information only for enumerated purposes”.

If the only allowed purpose for use of the information generated by the test group is publication of one (1) report then without breach of the NDA there will be no revision or extension of the published data.

“Would you care to gve your real name?”
No.
And I am sure he has his reasons not to give documents to anyone.
By the way, the fact you coshed to use your name is a choice of yours. And I will not check it i truly your name – I am not interested in: your arguments are much more interesting.

Point is: leave authotity principle to Fusionists who usually ask for documents when you point out some mistakes, hoping this could be enough to stop you. Guess what? Sometimes it is not.

Let Fibb be Fibb – his posts would not change if he was known as (say) “Giocacchino Rossi” or “Thomas Mann”.

Whoever you are. Would you care to gve your real name? My real name is Thomas Clarke. I don’t quite understand your infrequent not nice posts on this thread, other than that you don’t seem to like me. I don’t make a song and dance about it but anyone can find my real identity from my gmail id, used here, which has my real name. So I’m not anonymous. Nor are the authors of the report – their status as professors at a decent University lends weight to a report they co-sign.

There is no proper channel for public discussion of the report when it isn’t published in a journal. A follow-up article in Ny Teknik could be a way to put forward criticism and give the authors an opportunity to respond.

Do you know who talks, informally, to the three independent Swedish authors of the report? I would not want to take action if they were planning to reply but had not yet finalised what they will say, or if they were just not aware of the issue.

But otherwise I fully intend to name and shame them – because silence on an issue that in all honesty requires a comment (the X3.3. anomaly where they can confirm or deny variable resistance during the active test) makes it look as though they are putting face saving before scientific integrity. There is no conceivable good reason for it.

Worst case, if the non-independent authors of the report refuse to let them do this, they should issue a minority comment to that effect.

Anything less and their behaviour appears reprehensible – questions should be asked.

Ah – yes we are in agreement. Although you might reckon the 900W run was done after good data had been obtained. But at very least they should have some idea of a safe power and test that fully both dummy and active. They could just have done a proper active test with 500W.

Given the X3.3 anomaly that would still not be very helpful, but it would remove one variable.

I can see no excuse for the lack of clarification of the X3.3 anomaly. The independent testers should either do this, or explain what outside their control prevents it being done, or feel very embarrassed indeed.

I don´t follow you completely but think we say the same thing. The temperature of the heating coils will locally be higher when full 2.7kW power is dissipated in them compared to if most of power is dissipated in the fuel. But since the heat is mainly conducted radially, the average temperature of the reactor at the location of the heating coils will be about the same in active and dummy case for the same surface temperature of reactor.

The somewhat higher local temperature and risk for local melting may indeed be an excuse for not doing a dummy calibration at 2.7kW input power but it can not be an excuse for not doing a dummy calibration at 900W input power. Furthermore, if the additional 2.7kW dummy measurement had been done at the end of the experiment, it wouldn´t have been a catastrophy if the Inconel thread melted.

@ H.G. Branzell: You may be correct. The weak excuse from the test group for not doing a proper dummy calibration may echo a constraint set by the great inventor himself. Such constraints may also explain the interaction of the inventor in critical stages of the “independent” test. Maybe the inventor call the excess heat “the Rossi effect” to hint that secret catalyzer is Rossi. Or could it possibly be red mercury?

@ maryyugo,
the February test is very interesting because it would eliminate the steam uncertainty issue, but we both know which are the real reasons why that test has not been repeated with the proper flow, and the excuses for not doing so: patent pending, NDA, other priorities, and so on. The apparent COP was impressive, even if lower than those claimed in the Rossi-Focardi paper, anyway, as already shown on this blog (1), it can be mostly explained with a huge error on the assumed water flow rate. You have also to consider that, according to Passerini, the inlet water was very cold (7.5 °C) and at the outlet it was still well below the ambient temperature (14 °C), so the coolant was heated by the sorrounding materials.

Anyway the February test was presented just as a “non offical” technical test, so it is not as important as the demo held on January 14th, which was a public and official test announced, co-organized, supervised and documented by people of the Phisics Department and INFN of Bologna. UniBo should give a complete explanation of WHO, HOW and WHY made the 12 kW output power appear. Contrary to Rossi, She cannot invoke commercial reasons to be silent. UniBo has to fullfil the scientifical duty of every University and to defend the honor of the great Italian scientists whom the authors of this farce have been ignominously compared.

In order to get the same surface temperature, if the reactor works with COP 3, you have either (say) 900W through wires active or 2.7kW through wires dummy. In the active case the wires will be hotter than the surface by an amount given by the local wire thermal resistance at a power flux of 900W. In the dummy case the power flux for this local heatup will be 3X higher.

The local heatup from a line source is proportional to log(D1/D2) where d1 and D2 are the outer and inner diameter of the insulating material. You get a figure of around 100C using alumina thermal conductivity and D1/D2=5. But you can see that for a 0.5mm (say) wire with a 1mm (say) coating of alumina to the surface the figure is not too different because it is log of ratio that matters.

The same calculations affect local hotspots within the wire caused by high resistance from defects. these can results in significant local temperature increases, and the problem increases as the power through the wires.

Finally the temperatures here, although at least 70C or so lower than stated due to ignoring the view factor self-absorption of radiation, are pretty close to the limit for Inconel. Melting is a distinct possibility.

However there are some issues:

(1) This only works if the wires are Inconel. Who told the testers this? If the wires are truly Inconel then there is no NTC excuse and the measurements are flatly wrong by a factor of 3.3X.

(2) I agree they should have done a proper control. You can see how the right arguments could make them do what they did. Maybe for safety etc reasons that reactor has to be sealed for the real test, in such a way that non-destructive opening is impossible. Maybe Rossi, in charge of the opening, decided how this must be done and did so destructively.

(3) Rossi has said he had 2 spare reactors available in case of breakage. This flatly contradicts what the testers say.

What could have been done, taking their reservations at face value:
(1) do a dummy test on two reactors to test equivalence of low temeprature thermal characteristics.
(2) randomly choose one for the active test, the other for a non-active high temperature test.
(3) conduct tests.

Also (and this would have been easy, even given their self-imposed constraints, lack is inexcusable):

Check power out vs power in on active reactor at a range of powers, from dummy power up to as high as possible. In other words break it.

Finally, and equally inexcusable, is the lack of a thermocouple cemented to the outside of the reactor, and/or a TiO2 etc known emissivity patch. The measurement here is known to be indirect and therefore more likely to have sustemic errors, but there are many ways it could have been cross-validated.

But the testers refuse to cross-validate something as simple as the electrical in power. When they have stated they have stored (for future checking) the data that would do that. So what do you expect?

Can omeone explain why the test design was so complex. The test group could for instance done the following

1. Dummy test without fuel at 900 W input power

2. Active test with fuel at 900 W input power. If temperature was higher in 2 than 1 (i.e. any sign of effect due to fuel) they could continue with:

3. Dummy test where the input power was regulated to get approximately the same thermal image as in 2. That would also allow for a detailed comparison of the thermal images using fuel heating and pure external heating at approximately the same output power.

It would then be easy to just compare input power in case 3 with case 1 to get the COP without thermal calculations using critical assumptions about convection and emissivity etc.

If they couldn´t do a dummy test after the active test, they could in point 1 have done a series of dummy tests at different input powers. However, since one of the caps was opened after dummy test, the fuel inserted and the cap was successfully resealed with alumina powder cement, I don´t see why it would be impossible to reseal the cap again to do another dummy test after the active test.

In the test they didn´t even do point 1. Instead they measured the dummy at a much lower power, 500W, where thermal convection and radiation are very different than in active run. Their excuse for this is stated on page 6 in the report:

“…it was not meant to compare the operation of the loaded reactor to the dummy run. In fact, such a procedure would have required that the same amount of power be supplied to the dummy and to the reactor. In fact, it is well known that some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature. If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables. So, there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus.”

I don´t understand this excuse and wonder if anyone else here do. Assuming that the E-Cat works, the cooling of the Inconel wire is more efficient in the dummy test than in the active test when the wire is also heated by the fuel. Why would it then be larger probability of microscopic melt pots in the dummy test? And why would it be larger probability of fracturing the ceramic body in the dummy test than in the active test? Moreover Andrea Rossi recently said that there were spare alumina bodies for the test in case the original one would be damaged.

I apologize for the multiple posts but I make errors and there is no editor. I will try to be more cautious. The other quote I wanted in the post had to do with the power output. Instead, I copied and pasted the power INPUT twice. Sorry! The quote from NyTeknik was this:

” A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts.” and ““Minimum power was 15 kilowatts, and that’s a conservative value. I calculated it several times. At night we did a measurement and the device then worked very stable and produced 20 kilowatts.”

So 18 hours on less than a cupful of hydrogen! 15kW steady state minimum output power and input power steady state at 80W maximum! COP > 187!!!! It would have had to have been nuclear power! If this had been true, any credible person or organization would have repeated it — EXACTLY as it had been done and of course, with proper calibration. And Nobel prizes would have been awarded by now.

“According to Levi, the input electrical power to ‘ignite’ the device was about 1250 watts for five to ten minutes. It was then reduced to about 80 watts, equivalent to the power consumption of the control unit.”

” It then worked for 18 hours with the bottle closed. Quite impressive.”

and “According to Levi, the input electrical power to ‘ignite’ the device was about 1250 watts for five to ten minutes. It was then reduced to about 80 watts, equivalent to the power consumption of the control unit.”

So 15kW out and 80W in gives a “COP” of 187.5. Far as I know, this was the best performing ecat ever. And of course, they never saw fit to replicate it, have it independently tested, or, far as we know, preserve it for posterity.

Just so everyone knows, this is exactly how free energy scammers operate. Their best performing tests come at the start. The best devices are never seen again after the early tests. And the usual excuse (thanks to Rossi for not bothering with it) is that the device was dismantled to recycle the parts!

As always, Levi could have asked for and run a blank, using the electrical heater to input energy and to be sure that energy was properly accounted for by the output energy measuring system. As usual, Levi didn’t do that. As usual, there was no complaint about this from Lewan. And now, here we are at the end of 2014 and nobody has done the right tests yet. In Army parlance, the rude expression SNAFU applies.

@ maryyugo,
sorry, but you are mixing up data related to different tests. I gathered in a scheme (1) the 11 tests held on 2011 for which some information are available on the web. The first 3 are those documented mainly by Levi.

In all but the February one the output power is computed assuming that the steam was dry. The test of February, where the water was kept at low temperature, was an exception. The position of the temperature probe is surely one issue, but we have no confirmation that it was misplaced. On the contrary there are images, taken during the same test Petterson was refering to (on the October 6), that clearly show a possible overestimation of at least a order of magnitude on the water flow measurement.

But undoubtedly the most important test is the second one, the demo on January 14, 2011 that led Lewan “to this remarkable story” as he tells us at the beginning of his book. Recently some Indians scientists urged their government to resume the research on CF reminding that “Rossi gave a demonstration of a 10-KW unit at the University of Bologna in January 2011 in the presence of about 50 invitees”. That demo was the beginning of the LENR+ era, as someone called the LENR technology capable (on the paper) of industrial applications.

The COP=12 claimed in that demo can be easily explained by means of two measurement errors related to the steam dryness (a factor of 6) and the water flow (a factor of 2.5), as the incongruities between the Levi’s report and the available images show us.

After nearly 4 years, Levi still did not give any explanation of those incongruities which allowed him, and his UniBo collegues, to claim that incredible COP. It’s strange that people is now considering his last report where the claimed COP is much lower and computed with a very uncertain calorimetric technique. In my opinion, the TPR1 and 2 should have taken into account only after Levi have provided a full explaination of the results and incongruities of the January 2011 demo. Until then, it’s very hard to give credibility to the CF reports where his name appears among the authors.

Mats, what’s you comments on the misplaced thermocouple in the October 2011 test? For me it’s the most obvious proof of Rossi cheating so far. I find it very difficult to believe it’s just an honest mistake.

Do you consider it a mistake by Rossi. Or do you disagree that it is misplaced.

The production of plasma provides a negative feedback break on the reaction. When much of the hydride is heated to a state of plasma, no nanoparticles persist and the reaction slows to a stop. When the reactor cools to a critical level, the reaction picks up again and the reactor reheats. The Heat/cooling cycle is inherent in the context of the sub critical nature of the input/output energy balance based on the fuel loading when external heating is constant.

In order for this nanoparticle feedback loop to work, the number of permanent microparticles provided must be kept small. Those particles being the nickel micron sized particles.

To optimize COP, both heating and cooling is required in the Ni/H reactor. Heating produces a plasma which cools to condensing nanoparticles when the heat spike is removed. Through cooling, nanoparticles will condense out of the plasma that has been produced by the most recent heat spike. The application of heat also produces surface plasmon polartons(SPP) on the surface of these nanoparticles and pumps the SPPs to replenish plasmons and stimulate dipole vibrations on the surface of these Nanoparticles.

Like a pumped laser, the reactor is most effective when a regular heat/cooling cycle is set up. This periodic cycle keeps the population of nanoparticles large and the energy levels of their surface dipoles optimized.

Rossi’s secret sauce is a alkali metal hydride which supports rydberg matter nanoparticle production through the application of a heat/cooling cycle.

The problem with Levi’s test of early 2011 is not wet steam. It’s lack of calibration and lack of replication with proper documentation, as pointed out by Krivit at the time. And Krivit went all the way to Italy to make that point directly with Levi to no avail. Josephson tried to contact Levi about this by email and Levi did not reply.

The best explanation of Levi’s amazing and never repeated “COP” and peak power supposedly of 135kW in a small table top “reactor” is that he or Rossi simply placed the output temperature thermocouple too close or even in direct contact to the huge electrical heater inside the unit.

It is absolutely inconceivable that this amazing result, if it was valid, would not have been rapidly repeated, replicated, and verified by correct procedures. NOBODY is THAT stupid. 10kW sustained, 135kW peak, and COP > 10 and at times more than 30? And nobody kept this thing running? Ridiculous!

Remember that the original ecat had two large electrical heaters. Even more amazing, the largest of these “safety” (ROTFWL!) heaters was wrapped around the whole ecat which means that it heated only… wait for this… the COOLING WATER! And you guys believed that this thing was a fusion reactor? Amazing.

You can control an exothermic reaction by having fixed cooling (as in all the tests) and variable heat in. But it is a lot more direct and cheaper to have variable cooling and no heat in, except perhaps for a pre-heat phase. This also allows a higher percentage of control, so it is better if runaway is considered a problem.

And the variable cooling methods leads naturally to COP = infinity (or nearly, there is a small electrical power needed to run the cooling fans/pumps etc).

that is not a substantive comment. And my point (which is obvious, and has been made a a few other people, just it gets forgotten easily) is completely unshaken by anything you’ve said.

I tend to look at things simply until complexity is required. In this case complexity is not, regardless of the precise characteristics of the reaction variable heat in is less effective and more costly for stabilising the temperature than variable cooling.

You are looking at someone with a complex analysis and thinking I’ve not done that and therefore am likely wrong. It does not follow.

But, of course, since in reality the COP is 1, you can see why heat in is necessary!

It seems that David is not very successful in explaining to people how an exothermic reaction can be controlled by adding more heat to it. But if it can, its own heat would be just as good for that purpose and therefore if this is what happens in an E-Cat there should be no problems to pull the plug on it, it should just keep on running. When it gets warmer, the reaction slows down, when it gets cooler the reaction speeds up. It would be a stable equilibrium with small variations in temperature, a nice self-sustained operation lasting for half a year. An excellent hand warmer to keep in your pocket during the winter season. Please Dr. Rossi give us that as a Christmas gift!

If this reaction works, so that I guess we accept the wrong report at face value, I know a lot about the reaction.

I know that it is exothermic with a power vs temperature graph of 900W for 150C => 6W/C.

I know that it can be stabilised by a power reduction of about 30%

I therefore know that a bang/bang thermostatic controller with 900W (30% of power) of cooling could equally well stabilise it, with the dog-bone slightly insulated to reduce heat loss at operating temperature by 900W.

@Mats: A nuclear power plant has a COP = infinity. It can run on the electrical power itself produces. It needs power to start, or to keep the systems running when in shutdown. So there is a large difference between this and the purposed function of the E-cat, which this far more works as a heat pump than as an actual power source.

@Thomas
That’s like saying that you don’t need external power for running a nuclear plant.
You should maybe go to Fukushima and tell them. I hope they will be polite with you.
If this reaction works, you know nothing about its characteristics and what’s needed to control it, and you don’t even seem interested to find out. If you on the contrary would be interested you can check out the posts by David Roberson, as I said before.

So you need to pre-heater – and then you need a thermostatic cooling system. That will provide better stabiility than modulating an external heat source because exothermic systems are inherently unstable – the power reduction from switching off a heating element will certainly be less than the power reduction from a good cooling system.

The fact that Rossi needs this large heat input – and talks about low COP making electricity generation difficult – shows he is a fake, or totally incompetent.

I believe that Rossi controlled the power output of his reactor in the TPR-2 test by using a very light fuel load to keep it from melting down. I will recommend that this type of test be done by MFMP when they get around to it.

Here is his latest for your convenience:

I have been conducting numerous simulations of the expected behavior of a thermally controlled energy source such as the HotCat designed by Rossi. Now I have constructed a technique that can be utilized to characterize a design and determine many of its important parameters.

It would be advantageous to have an opportunity to retest the original device that was experimented upon by the recent third party team of scientists. They had the perfect test vehicle to use according to my plans. Perhaps MFMP will take time to perform the tests that I am suggesting.

The characterization should begin by taking measurements upon the dummy reactor that contains no core fuel. I call this curve the device thermal design function and will refer to it as curve 1 in the remainder of this post. The procedure is to make an x-y plot of thermal input power versus device temperature. I prefer to place the temperature along the X axis and the input power along the Y axis. Careful measurement of the temperature of the device by means of a thermocouple and IR camera is required if accurate prediction of the final operation is desired.

Points upon the curve are located by applying a calibrated input power to the heating elements of the unit and recording the final temperature of the device after it has stabilized. This process is repeated many times throughout the temperature range over which the device will operate. A smooth X-Y plot is the desired outcome of this procedure. The temperature axis needs to be in absolute dimensions such as degrees Kelvin.

The final completed curve will be monotonic with rising temperature where the conduction and convection processes dominate the lower range while the radiation kicks in to dominate the high temperatures.

Next a small quantity of fuel is added to the device. A limited amount is required to ensure that the test subject remains stable for the duration of the measurement procedure. Too much fuel inserted might well lead into thermal runaway or otherwise make the test difficult to complete. I refer to this curve as a system response function and shall refer to it as curve 2. Again, the same type of curve is generated with input power on the Y axis and absolute temperature along the X axis. Many pairs of X,Y data need to be measured so that a smooth curve can be generated as before over the expected operational temperature.

Once these two curves are available you generate a third one which is the core power generation function that is referred to as curve 3. For each temperature point you read or calculate the power input from curve 1 and curve 2 along the Y axis of that particular curve. You will find that curve 2 will show a smaller value of input power than shown by curve 1 at each temperature point. This is because the power generated by the core is added to the input power in this procedure and it therefore takes less input power to achieve a desired temperature. So complete curve 3 by taking the difference in power readings between curve 1 and curve 2. This curve numbered 3 is a measure of the internally generated core power that is calculated for each temperature.

At this point enough data has been collected in order to characterize the device at a given ambient temperature. A final device characterization curve can be generated by taking the curve number 3 and multiplying it by a factor proportional to the amount of mass inserted into the system. Twice as much core mass should generate approximately twice as much heat power at a given temperature. There may be interaction of some type that depends upon the amount of mass placed into the device, but a first order approximation is about as good as can be achieved without extensive measurements. An error in this determination can be corrected for by changing the amount of mass to obtain the desired results.

We are not through quite this easily. After the multiplication is completed, you take curve 1 which was a measurement associated with the dummy device and subtract this latest curve 3 multiplied by a factor from it point by point at each temperature. After this new curve 4, which I call the device characterization curve, is generated the real magic begins to show up. If totally stable operation is desired you will note that the resulting curve 4 will be monotonic with temperature and never demonstrates a negative slope over any range of operational temperatures. This is of course true in the case of the dummy device and will remain that way until a sufficient amount of core mass is applied. Operation within this region can be done, but the COP will never be very reasonable since it appears to be limited to around 4 according to my simulations. Sufficient positive feedback must be provided in order to achieve a reasonable COP.

For more appropriate COP the core mass factor is increased until the slope of the final curve 4 becomes negative at some critical temperature and input power combination. If the input power is increased until this critical power is applied the device goes into a negative resistance type of operation. Positive feedback of thermal power takes over and the temperature rapidly increases. An excellent design can recover from this situation provided the geometry is constructed to ensure that the amount of heat leaving the device by means of conduction, convection and radiation is always greater at every temperature than the amount of heat internally generated. Truly magnificent COP might be possible since the input can be throttled back while the device remains at the high temperature and hence high power generation condition. Once the input power is totally taken away the device can begin to cool back to room temperature. Other methods of active cooling might be applied in order to shut down the device if eliminating the input is not sufficient to stop the reactions.

Earlier I found that operation within the negative resistance region was possible with a PWM drive input. This remains possible provided the temperature is prevented from reaching a level that either results in latch up of the device or thermal runaway. The key parameter needing to be controlled is the same as above. At all temperatures at which the device is operated the core generated power must be kept below the power that is lost by conduction, convection, and radiation. This implies that the input must be switched completely off at a controlled high temperature point and then reactivated as the device cools to a desired level. COP can be very reasonable with this form of operation and the earlier statements made my Rossi fit well within the simulation results. I remain concerned about how critical operation of this type appears for a long duration system.

It is important to perform the same type of curve generation and procedures listed above using ambient temperature as a parameter if a complete understanding of the operation of these devices is desired. There is not much more that I can do beyond the present analysis until additional measured data is obtained. Perhaps the MFMP group can help to fill in the blanks.

Earlier I have stated on this forum that the method of supplying heat to a reaction chamber is not relevant for the possible reactions in it, chemical or of unspecified type. No objections to this proposition have been heard. If we accept this proposition, without loss of generality the simplicity of evaluation of a test involving such a reaction chamber is maximized by use of a continuously and slowly variable power source like a DC heating element. The failure to take advantage of this is indicative of an intention to confuse or mislead those who try to understand and evaluate such a test.

Now, look at such a reaction chamber with smooth electrical easy to quantify electrical heating. Suppose that the chamber contains a mixture of substances that is capable of an unspecified exothermal reaction. This means that at a sufficiently high temperature the ingredients will start to change in such a way that they release heat thereby losing energy. Thus we know that at this point of the reaction process increased external heating causes increased internal heat production which in turn increases the temperature in the chamber. We recognize this as a positive feedback loop. For a normal chemical reaction we would expect the reaction to run away quickly to release the available chemical energy. In a closed chamber this would often result in an explosion.

Let us now assume that the hypothetical reaction is not a reaction with a temperature coefficient that is positive for all temperatures. Instead the reaction has a temperature coefficient that increases from near zero at room temperature to a high value at a certain temperature. For higher temperatures the coefficient will start to decline in such a way that no thermal runaway occurs. With such a temperature characteristic the process will be self regulating and burn nice and quiet like a Christmas candle. In other words, it will not explode. If the external cooling is not too high the initial heating can now be turned off and the electric wires may be disconnected while the reaction continues.

So what have we got here? Yes, it is an E-Cat look-alike conspicuously operating in uninterrupted self sustained mode, silently producing cheap heat without radioactive radiation or radioactive ashes, no strings attached. If you hear a noise it is just the audience cheering.

What is the explanation for the deafening absence of hurrahs at Rossi’s demos and tests? Please enlighten me on the logical fallacy in the above reasoning.

LENR is a family of systems that exhibit a wide range of effectiveness. Some of these systems are very week and others are strong. All these systems employ a set of technologies which number as large as one hundred. How these technologies are employed will dictate the power and the weaknesses of the system and therefore the usefulness of any given LENR system.

The LENR system reflects the designer of that system. The designer makes decisions about what technologies to use in his creation and how to apply those technologies. LENR is not a science, it is a collection of systems. LENR is not like superconductivity, but LENR may employ superconductivity as one of its component technologies or it may not. The enemies of LENR attack the designer of a given LENR system because that system is a projection of the judgment and knowledge of that designer.

There are many types of aircraft. Some are supersonic and some are gliders. The designer has made technical decisions to meet the functions that the system was specified to meet.

You can’t prove an aircraft. But you can show that an aircraft works or it doesn’t by a capabilities demonstration..

For example, the enemies of the Papp engine always attack Joe Papp as a paranoid and wacko. They never attack the concept of cluster formation in a noble gas. An iron clad third party test that was enough to prove the Papp engine to the Patent office is not enough for the naysayers. The system that Joe Papp built must be flawed and could never work because Joe Papp was flawed. Lenr is just like aircraft. This same logic applies to Rossi and LeClair.

The DGT system is flawed because DGT ran out of money. So that system could not have worked because the cost controls employed by DGT were tragically lacking.

The naysayers want LENR to meet the open source requirements of science, They want to replicate them. But replication cannot be done because it is a system comprised of many sciences. And that proper combination of component parts are proprietary in industry. In this lies the dilemma of the clash of cultures that LENR suffers: science and engineering, A LENR designer can prove that some components of LENR work in a scientific experiment as I have showed on this thread, but LENR can only be proven as an effective system by competing in the marketplace.

I did not followed the whole story. So, still looking for the wonderful almost Inconel material? Looking inside an empty cat (or simply powering an empty one the same as during the run) could be easier and could shut up us definitely…But let’s see if someone in the whole world is able to build that special resistance, and after that, let’s ask him if he gave one (or three) to Rossi.

@ maryyugo,
– Also, are you familiar with Grabowski et al’s paper which demonstrated that the wet steam vs dry steam error *exactly* accounted for the claimed COP of 6 in the original ecat demos?

In the original demo held on January 14th, 2011, the claimed COP was much higher, up to 30 depending on the source. Levi reported an output power of 12686 W for about 40 min, with an average adsorbed power of 1022W.

To explain this COP of about 12.5, the factor 6 due to the wet vs dry steam error is not enough. You should also take into consideration the error of about 2.5 due to the mismeasurement of the water flow.

Anyway among the authors of the Grabowski et al’s paper, there was Melich too. He and Celani presented the demo results at the ICCF16 in Chennay, and did not address this steam issue. Melich was, and still is, on the Board of Advisers who approved the release of the Levi’s report on the JoNP. So, it seems to me that the scope of the Grabowski paper was to make clear that he was aware of the steam issue, but that he considers the UniBo professors correctly estimated its dryness.

Yes, it almost seems to fit too well. Could be fake. People on e-catworld are looking into it but won’t have an answer back until next week (after Turkey day).

@ Cimpyy — *IF* it turns out to be real, I think it could be the element inside the e-cat. I am reserving judgement for now. But my reason for thinking it might be the element is based on how well it fits the report, not because it is close to IH. (Being close to IH does boost my confidence that this is the element used in the e-cat. Of course IH could go anywhere to get a heating element, but it makes sense that they would source some of this stuff through local contacts/suppliers.)

“A piece that fits the puzzle so well”
Do you really believe a piece like that one is truly inside the E Cat? Because it would fit well? Or because the SiC industry is reported to be located around IH location?

Via Ecatworld, via Cobraf, it appears someone found a 3-phase silicon carbide heating element whose temperature-resistance curve seems to fit the Lugano report figures. Spec sheet says it was “custom designed for for a specific application.” The element is made by a company apparently located in Charlotte, NC (not far from IH HQ). The plot thickens.

Andrea Rossi:
November 26th, 2014 at 2:29 PM
“Bernie Koppenhofer:
The Hot-Cat that I gave to the Professors of the ITP has been given back to me the day after the day in which the reactor has been turned off. The Professors had only one reactor, because the other 2 that I brought to Lugano as spare parts, just in case of breakages, have not been delivered to the Professors, since no breakages happened to the one we gave them to be tested.
Warm Regards,
A.R.”

Lugano report:
“As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W.”

H-G, Mats, and everyone, you may wish to participate in the lively discussions at “The Trap”. The regulars include someone who has worked with Earthtech and a member of the Steorn “jury”. It’s members only but getting a subscription is free and easy:

No, it was a private communication. Kind of, to Rossi the mail may have appeared to indicate that a very big company was interested in his doings. He even offered to lease out a megacat. In think that was before it went public. We exchanged a few mails but in the end he got CAPs mad at me and my questions so he broke up. It was quite entertaining.

MY: “– did you, or Kullander or Essen ever discuss with Rossi the various suggestions, mostly from Vortex, on how to calibrate the steam ecats or how to run a blank (for example a reactor lacking hydrogen)? If so what did he say?
….
– Same question about “sparging” (condensing in an insulated tank) the steam to measure heat output better?”

By now several years ago I asked Rossi precisely this question, telling him that this would vastly increase the credibility of his demos. And he politely answered me that, yes we are in the process of doing this right now. A report will follow.

I am still waiting for the report, but I am certain that it will show up soon. Rossi always keeps his promises, doesn’t he?

For the benefit of those who are not fully informed I need to add that it was not as much about condensing the steam as it was about collecting the hot water that disappeared unmeasured and unnoticed down the drain, aka the COP = 6 trick.

Exactly as for the story of airplanes: no means unbelievers could stop them flying by writing on newspaper they could not.

Here is the same: if it was possible to fuse at low temperature and pressure, it would have happened no matter what skeptics like us could wrote.

Point is, now it seems it is more important what we write than what can happen – might it be because of it is all a matter of believing? That is: if you believe, the game can work and someone can enrich on your dream.

A pity the dream will not produce any hot for true, a pity the dream is still on for some people since quite five years. A pity that man made people dreamed on another dream before and another one before that, each time leaving nothing but ruins around…

Axil, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that I don’t care what you think and say. I do read it sometimes. But I don’t care about disabusing you from your beliefs as you suggested I should do.

If LENR were real or even a reasonably likely possibility, anonymous rants on blogs such as mine, Cimpy;s, Thomas’s and those on ecatnews.com by many, especially “Popeyes” would make absolutely no difference.

If Rossi really had LENR in his original ugly piece of junk tubing he called an ecat, he would have simply repeated the obvious tests such as the one Levi did, but with the proper controls and documentation that Krivit reasonably asked for. And the rest would history. He would be a billionaire, he would be in line for a Nobel Prize, everyone on earth would know his name, and nobody would give one constipated sh*t for what obscure anonymous people posted on an obscure blog.

Axil, I agree that LENR has the potential to be “the most impactful advance in the history of humanity” IF it really exists. There have indeed been many reports that indicate transmutation during electrolysis involving Ni or Pd electrodes. I hope that some funding agency will support a careful investigation of the reproducibility of the reported results where exactly the same experiment (same electrodes and same electrolyte) is repeated and analyzed at different independent and well established labs. Transmutation should be easier to check than small amounts of excess heat. A positive result from such a reproducible test would be fantastic and show that LENR is real. I think that would lead to an explosion of research funding in the field.

However, it is not sceptical commenters like maryyugo and Thomas Clarke that you should fear if you care about the future of LENR. On the contrary, their criticism is relevant and based on published data from the E-Cat experiments. Healthy scepticism and judicious evaluation of the experimental data is a prerequisite when you are dealing with such an important and unexpected effect. Instead, I am afraid that the E-Cat story may be the last nail in the LENR coffin.

I don´t want to accuse anyone of fraud. Maybe the initial results with COP>1 for the E-Cat were due to an honest measurement mistake caused by the use of a power meter that lacked true RMS function. Maybe the turning point in the story was the test by SP using a true RMS power meter that showed COP=1. For the inventor and his closest collaborators, it may then have been difficult to accept that years of struggle, invested money and reputation have been lost on an illusion caused by a simple measurement mistake. It is then understandable if they would resort to shady methods to delay the inevitable disaster.

I think the test team should objectively consider this possibility as an alternative hypothesis and see if it better explains the measurement results. I feel a bit sorry for all involved if this would turn out to be true but every day of silence from the test team makes their situation worse.

“The rejection of LENR is on the same plane as the rejection of evolution or denial of climate change”

It were if the first was as real as the latter.
There is no crime in dismissing a fraud, while on the contrary there is in supporting one – not to speak of the crime of distracting time and effort in searching a REAL solution to the matters frauders claim they are solving.

It is NOT the kind of problems, their heaviness or their urgency that can make a dream real.

On the contrary, the dream is making them worse.

We are not gullible all the same way, that’s a piece of the matter. Another is someone understood gullibles are a lot in the world, and can serve the aim of making one or few richer than before. As per the big matter, those few would have not solved in any case.

Axil, what planet do you live on? I know of no place in the developed world that an invention promising almost free energy would be suppressed by comments written on internet blogs. In a parallel universe perhaps?

I am very concerned about what you and the others here think. LENR has the potential to be the most impactful advance in the history of humanity. Its suppression is tantamount to a crime against humanity.

The lives, prosperity, futures, and happiness of billions of people are on the line. I oftentimes feel that a demonic spirit is at work in people who make it their top priority to undercut such a substantive advancement in human culture that has the potential to take humankind to the next level in the Ascent of Man. the development of human society can be directly traced through its proper understanding of science. The rejection of LENR is on the same plane as the rejection of evolution or denial of climate change caused by anthropogenic sources. But the consequence of its denial is far more disastrous.

Axil, I don’t care what you believe. If I disabuse you of one fantasy, you will simply find another. As to how Papp and Rohner died, how do you know it was caused by radium? Papp did his work in the 1960’s and Rohner much later. If by that time, they were unaware of the hazards of radium and used it without shielding, they were morons. As for the Rohners and LeClaire, they are notorious liars and have been called out on the internet as such.

A few questions for Mats, with all due respect to his hard work, persistence and honesty:

– did you, or Kullander or Essen ever discuss with Rossi the various suggestions, mostly from Vortex, on how to calibrate the steam ecats or how to run a blank (for example a reactor lacking hydrogen)? If so what did he say?

I know that I once asked Rossi (can’t remember if through Rothwell or directly to JONP) why he never ran without hydrogen to do a blank and his honest to god answer was: “why? I already know what will happen? Nothing.”

– Same question about “sparging” (condensing in an insulated tank) the steam to measure heat output better?

– did anyone ever suggest to Rossi that it would make more sense to finish proving that the small simple ecats worked? In a repeated test like Levi’s infamous liquid flow calorimetry from which he would not give actual data to Krivit or Josephson? What was the response?

Much in what you say is true. But the Papp engine did work. Papp know that he could not commercialize the Papp engine because it required radium to function. In the end, it was Radium that eventually killed Papp and the younger Rohner bother.

The Papp is an application of nanoplasmonics. Critics of the Papp engine could never understand how radioactivity was turned to advantage in the Papp engine design.

Nanoplasmonics accelerates nuclear isotope decay.

In my opinion, like all manifestations of LENR, this reaction is based on nanoplasmonic energy amplification and concentration.

I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. This science is a branch of chemistry.

I am sure that all the naysayers here have no idea what that branch of science is all about.

A series of experiments that I am particularly fond of and not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect. I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained to you in past communications.

Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.

It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and the transmutation that fission can produce.

Abstract

Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed.

Here is another paper:

I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.

These nanoplasmonics experiments are simple in showing how light and nanoparticles can produce nuclear reactions. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium and thorium salts can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated?

Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and why and why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them.

If you want to undercut my belief in LENR, disprove these nanoplasmonics experiments.

One feature that helps Rossi is his naive charisma. Several of those he has engaged in his demonstrations and tests have witnessed that he is reputable, knowledgeable and …. naive. The last makes them forgive the nonsense he has said over the years, all blatant lies and all the unfulfilled promises. Naivety has certainly fooled many of his earlier career and it still serves him well.

I agree about the classic patterns. Of course what he does indicates a deliberate attempt to deceive through multiple different tests each with a new error mechanism (I must say he gets credit for inventiveness here – going from black paint to alumina is a wonderful bit of extra complexity).

I’m saying that many people can have that level of deception and be so self-deluded that they believe it themselves. It is not rational, but then people are not rational. In a sense it does not matter because to the external world how much Rossi believes his own PR is irrelevant. But it helps to understand how Rossi can seem so convincing. You are probably right as far as the law is concerned – I’m just not willing/interested in making any decision myself in that area. And I guess we will never know.

There is an interesting similarity between Papp´s exploding machine in the sixties and Rossi’s failing to demonstrate his reaktor in Uppsala as he had promised. Both knew they were close to be revealed. Papp blow up his machine, Rossi made sure the reactor was out of order after his arrival.

The problems with believing that Rossi is self deluded are many! For openers there is his history with Petroldragon and the tubes that led from his toxic waste tanks to irrigation ditches as documented by Italian journalists who saw them and took photos.

Second is what Rossi did with DOD/CERL when he sold them a collection of lies about thermoelectric devices and then delivered a couple of dozen pieces of Russian junk he bought surplus in San Diego. Gary Wright documented all this with personal phone calls to the company who sold them to Rossi. This was an expenditure of $9 million for CERL of which Rossi and his buddies received at least $2 million. They were so embarrassed they removed their report. However Krivit kindly immortalized it.

Third, Rossi (and Mats) were told again and again exactly how to make the early experiments valid by running calibrations with the built in heater to make sure the actual heat produced was being accurately measured. This was NEVER done despite it being easy, quick and cheap. Instead, Rossi changed everything and went on with demos which had NEW issues of deception. That is no delusion. It is the classical pattern of free energy fraud.

The overwhelming probability is that Rossi knows exactly what he is doing and is extremely clever at it. He’s clever at choosing his “scientists” and journalists and he is clever at designing the deceptions. Finally, though, the SP Swedish scientists and now Aldo Proia, caught him. I suspect his demise is imminent because at some point, IH will demand a real test or a sellable machine.

I want to qualify my comment about Rossi being an obvious crook. He is of course a crook from past law-breaking in Italy. At best his e-cat enterprize could quite easily be self-delusion & mistake – very common in sole inventors who do not engage with criticism – together with a strong tendency to say whatever sounds good in any situation regardless of consistency or truth. Those things don’t necessarily make him a crook, though they make him a business partner no-one in their right minds would have any dealings with.

I’m not sure quite why Darden does this, except that the lure of revolutionary free energy is very strong and Rossi’s PR seems to have been faultless as far as believers go.

What is fascinating is that obvious fruitcakes like Papp and obvious crooks (maybe self-deluded – I don’t know) like Rossi get and keep support from the likes of Mats.

I can see that for Mats the world is full of wonder and this is often squashed by boring left side of brain critics. So it is his mission to keep open all these possibles.

That would work with the LENR stuff which is within experimental error and will go on: it can never be disproved and those who hope can go on hoping. Quite how Mats and many others can suspend disbelief in the same way for the more obvious kooky enterprizes is a source of psychological interest to me. I’m just not empathic enough to understand it.

Hagelstein at MIT claims COP of > 10 at measurable powers from his NANOR. He was going to sell them, not sure what happened about that.

The problem, when you look carefully, is that these are glass bulb affairs and as MFMP have shown glass bulb calorimetry has very interesting quite large errors. The Hagelstein control devices are not real controls, because adding D2 vs H2 alters the surface of the wires and also the gasses in the bulb (D2 and H2 have quite different physical characteristics due to the different MW).

You can also be sure that if these devices were really so strongly over-unity Hagelstein could have got them properly and independently flow calorimetry tested by now, and won a Nobel Prize.

To Axil about Papp:
*
Papp did not claim a super-cavitating torpedo. He claimed a supersonic (!) submarine… …which he scuttled. The photos were silly — it seemed to be made from junk such as washing machine components.

I knew an old Hungarian doctor (no longer living) in San Diego who once treated Papp in the 1960’s for a superficial bullet wound. He told me that Papp had obvious severe mental illness with delusions of grandeur and paranoia. He thought that the “mob” was after him and wanted to steal his inventions. The wounds he suffered were clearly self-inflicted. He claimed he had been shot by a hit man. A professional hit man would not have nicked his arm and let him survive.

Papp was also behind the “Fascination” automobile which was supposed to be powered by a Papp engine which would need no fuel. In fact, it was powered with a conventional 4 cylinder gasoline engine. It was briefly exhibited at Denver Airport in the 1960’s and sucked in gullible investors who gave Papp money and never heard from him again.

Feynman did not agree to give Papp money during his law suit. The university settled the suit out of court to avoid additional legal costs. Feynman was vigorously against this. Feynman had nothing to do with the explosion. The best theory is that Papp planted explosives in his machine in order to delay the investors’ investigations further.

Papp was a looney tune and a crook. He was nothing more. There is no way to extract power from noble gases. McKubre is silly to attend to obvious crooks and liars like the Rohner Brothers. I mean, have you seen their web sites?

It’s useful to draw a sharp distinction between high power/high power ratio LENR and the low power stuff. High power might be considered 100W or more with a “COP” (power ratio) of 3 or better, running for days or weeks without added “fuel”. It’s easy to demonstrate high power/high ratio LENR properly. It’s just that nobody has done it. And that applies to all Rossi demos presided over by Mats and the Swedish scientists back to 2011. Low power LENR is evanescent. It seems to be lost in the noise of bad measurement methods.

I’ve never engaged McKubre in discussion (how would one do that?) but I have exchanged dozens of emails with Rothwell. At one time in 2011, we emailed about putting together a team of experts including him and me, to properly test Rossi’s steam-making original ecat in Italy. All communications went through Rothwell. Rossi never agreed to have a team properly constituted of heat transfer and fluid flow experts, joined by an electrical specialist, to test an ecat using *their instruments* and *their methods* (sparging steam and liquid flow calorimetry). Now we are learning exactly why.

But further discussions with Rothwell about examples of high power LENR were futile. I asked him for papers and all the ones he provided were lame. On some, the results were obscured with coordinate graphs where the axes were unlabelled or didn’t make sense, being some sort of ratio of complex quantities. Many papers featured dreadfully bad calorimetry, in which heat flows were approximated by temperatures, improperly calibrated and subject to random variations due to their environment. It was a mess.

There were one or two papers in the 100W range which seemed to have promise. I misplaced the links now– maybe Mats know them. But they had never been replicated and they were either unpublished or placed in obscure journals.

In summary, high power LENR is nowhere to be found except from Rossi and Defkalion, both now clearly investor frauds. Brillouin has no publications and no public demonstrations and the same is true of Nanospire (which makes nutball claims), Miley (whose results were attributed to a distracted pregnant technician who made mistakes) and who else is there?

Mats, maybe you should have a conversation with Aldo Proia before you continue to promote Andrea Rossi with your books. At least, include his experiences with testing and with Rossi!

In the meantime, the “Rossi says” aggregator web site has disappeared. Anyone know who ran it and what happened to it? It was: http://www.rossilivecat.com

Mats is right. You will not convince him. Take any one of those LENR research papers. I can look at it, say why it is not strong evidence, where the holes are. Mats will say I am being overly critical and that there are so many different papers all providing evidence that they must be true.

This is a profound difference, and only very careful attention to scientific detail of the sort few can do will resolve it.

Mats will reckon the reasons almost no nuclear scientists think LENR is real is because they are biassed and unable to abandon old theories.

A more plausible argument would be that they understand the holes in LENR as a theory (it is not coherent) and the problems with the evidence (the only hypothesis it strongly fits is that there is no nuclear reaction occurring).

Scientists are strongly rewarded for coming up with new ideas, or new experimental evidence. Not all of them are good at this, I agree, but for none of the competent scientists capable of drilling down on experimental data to find the kernel of truth to be interested in new ideas. That I think highly unlikley.

Thomas Henry Huxley would not have seen it so, and he pioneered new ideas:

“and if the condition of my success in unraveling some little difficulty of anatomy or physiology is that I shall rigorously refuse to put faith in that which does not rest on sufficient evidence, I cannot believe that the great mysteries of existence will be laid open to me on other terms…. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and hopes upon weaker convictions. I dare not if I would.”

Careful checking and a refusal to jump to easy conclusions or accept what is wishes are essential in discovery. I do not much see them amongst LENR researchers.

@H-G
I have seen enough discussions and research referred to understand that evidence is overwhelming. It’s not difficult. You can do it too. I don’t think you go into research papers to accept series of other research that you accept as valid. H-G, please don’t make me lose my time in this kind of discussion. We can go on for ever. Be more productive.

Thank you Mats, the answer appears to be no, you cannot show us a single convincing LENR report. How can you then be overwhelmed by all the proofs that LENR is real? I think that just listening to the prophets is a risky proposal. If I made this my standard modus vivendi I would get lost very soon.

@thomas – I’m referring to the big picture of innovations throughout history. You’ll have to accept that a few fraudsters occasionally make money in the same field. That’s a price worth to pay, if you get disruptive inventions changing the world.
But you can keep focusing on disproval if you please. It will certainly stop one or two fraudsters.

MFMP are engaged in a proper process that might lead to discovery. They are taking claims and testing them, carefully. Their aim is to get something clearly extraordinary – after which of course the discovery process would have vast sums of money thrown at it.

MFMP are however unusual amongst LENR research. One thing that keeps them honest is the ability to draw on critique from many people on the web who are competent and have access to all the experimental data.

Anyone seriously thinking LENR might be real should be doing what MFMP is. Very few of the LENR researchers approve of MFMP. They say it is a waste of time.

@Matts. Do you ever consider why it is that LENR is so difficult to disprove? I mean, in the current case, what would need to happen for you to stop believing Rossi has something? I can’t imagine anything, as long as Rossi remains alive and able to explain things.

More generally, how could the “LENR hypothesis” be disproved? What experimental results does it predict the lack of which would show it false?

If you agree with me that it is essentially non-disprovable that should give you pause for thought before being so sure it is true.

It is important to be curious. And also to look very carefully at details, and not make assumptions.

I have looked at very many LENR papers, none of them provide convincing evidence of extraordinary physics. The people who think that they do tend just to ignore possible ways in which experiments can go wrong or be (innocently) misinterpreted. They also assume that deliberate deception cannot happen – though amongst LENR scientists this is not that common.

As with this test of Rossi’s device, if you look casually at it, it would seem to indicate extraordinary heat production. It would also seem to indicate ash that could only be generated via nuclear reactions.

More careful analysis and both these bits of evidence look extremely flaky. The ash is a game changer, because either it is real ash, or someone, presumably Rossi, has switched it in a deliberate attempt to deceive. The chances for it being real ash are exceedingly low.

@H-G Branzell
You should listen to him because he has a much better overview than any of us in this field.
And you should listen to him because it’s important to be curious if you want to learn something and discover things.
But you can also choose not to.

“Much smarter and more competent people have discussed this for years, and the evidence is overwhelming. You’d better discuss with them. Talk with Michael McKubre or Jed Rothwell.”

Now we have seen that Mike supports an impossible machine, so what can we say about Jed Rothwell? Why should we listen to him?

We know that he has collected thousands of LENR related articles in his archive at LENR-CANR.org where Jed is “Librarian”. Search for his name in the library results in 23 documents. None of them describes LERN research done by Jed himself. So at best we can call Jed a cold fusion meta researcher.

I have not been able to verify that Jed has any formal training in any of the disciplines required to grasp what is possible and what is not in this world. In that respect he is on par with another fervent LENR believer, Steven Krivit, whose training is in computer science and like him he is foremost a LENR journalist and both of them are hoarding cold fusion research reports that didn’t make it to the finals. And so far, that is all of them.

If you good fellows do not accept the Papp engine as a valid over unity device with all the validated third party testing associated with it, you will never accept the Rossi reactor no matter what tests are performed and patents granted.

Nonetheless, subsequent to Papp’s death, no one has demonstrated a working version of his engine. But note that the engine was validated by Professor Nolan and his team from the University of Oklahoma at the time of the 3rd patent application, by request of the USPTO. Nolan’s signed affidavit and C.V. is included as Appendix A in the full paper version of the Infinite Energy Magazine special issue on the Papp Engine, edited by Dr. Eugene Mallove. –

One of the high points of subsequent activity by Papp and his colleagues was the independent certification testing in 1983. Thanks to the late Dr. Paul Brown and to Jack Kneifl, I have had in my files for several years photocopies of the actual documentation of the certification test, which was done in Oklahoma. It has been circulating among those who have been interested in reviving the Papp technology, and includes Chemistry Professor Nolan’s impressive C.V. The affidavit is reprinted in Appendix A.

Assertion that wire is shadowing heat source when it could equally be tape generating heat with gaps. Shows extraordinary lack of critical thinking.
No explanation of “electromagnetic pulses”. How are these connected to test – they might be an additional power source
No cross-check data from second PCE-830 during active test
No consideration of inner temperature in reactor (+70C at least from outer if heat source is on inside). This is too near to highest Inconel melting point – should lead them to question assumptions.

Not all these things would be picked up by a peer reviewer – but some might. No report is perfect – this one however has a lot of holes even if it were not claiming extraordinary results.

The third party test for the Papp engine was required by the U.S. patent office and that video and the sworn affidavits(a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.) provided by the third party testers that when with the video was enough to permit the patent office to grant a patent to Papp for the engine IP.

That does not make sense. The pre-print released data. All that is needed is to correct errors in the pre-print. No data required except what was already released (and a tiny bit more of the same).

In any case were it publishable they could pre-publish on arxiv. Were I peer reviewing I would have quite a number of points that needed addressing before acceptance:
View angle change to e (a 20% error)
No reference to later more accurate work on Al2O3 optical properties
No consideration of transparency issue, and bounding of errors from that
No consideration of different types of Al2O3 (which have different optical properties)
Wrong C2 currents
Anomalous X3.3
Assertion that wire is Inconel
Assertion that wire shadows inner heat source which could only be true if Al2O3 were transparent and hence assumptions incorrect
Linear interpolation used on old emissivity data clearly innappropriate
No disclosure of the inferred emissivity in the active test. This is critical to understanding the results
No statement of camera measurement window
No explanation of how results from camera out of temperature spec by X2.5 are validated

Now, all these issues can be addressed, some easily, none of them necessarily deal breakers, though the X3.3 issue looks likely to reduce the COP to 1. But a proper scientific report must address them all and any decent peer reviewer would insist on this and thereby obtain a much better paper.

As I have been informed on this site, it is a requirement to reveal data through the journal that publishes the article. There has been no article publication and therefore no data exclusive data reveal. This is just the way real science works.

I think the authors have clammed up because they have not after 6 weeks replied to the critical X3.3. criticism when they could clearly answer it from stored data they hold. This was a pre-published copy of the report and they said they would revise it along with questions.

So the long delay is most surprising – especially because scientists hate to leave errors uncorrected. The report has an error under all circumstances (if the heater changes resistance then it is not Inconel, and that should be corrected. Also the fact that they have measured this chnage, in the warm-up stage, should be noted, since it is most unusual).

Videos are a valid form of proof. Did not some here on this site request to see videos of the TPR-2 test showing Rossi activates and the clamp positions? All those explicit requests for videos came from CimPy. CimPy must have a memory problem.

“as witnessed with my own eyes, I saw the video of the Papp engine running without a battery.”

So a video, Axil? That is your strong evidence?

…might it be you’re younger than 15? Or is it more probable videos are true represent a tion of reality? And thus, for example, wheels can spin forever thanks to magnetes, people can walk on water, you can materialize things from air and aliens are among us?

You know, Axil, there is plenty of videos for stuff like that, too…Did you report your strong evidence to the Vortex friends?

Really Axil? A machine which uses noble gases as a source of energy? The most inert gases known? Are we to discard centuries of painstaking research in chemistry and physics for the word of a man who was clearly schizophrenic and who was also an obvious liar? Or perhaps you also believe in his supersonic submarine?

If past is prolog, belief in the Papp engine by Michael McKubre is well deserved. The Papp engine received 6 U.S. patents associated with two different versions of the Papp engine. The last version of the Papp engine passed an independent third party test proving to the patent office that it produced gainful energy in self sustain mode. That noble gas version received adulation from the US patent office as the best patent of the year in which the patent was granted. Rossi has not gotten that far yet.

Yet R Feynman killed a guy and injured another in his attempt to discredit that invention during a demo. In court. Feynman was found wanting and had to pay a settlement to Papp.

And yet, to this day, the Papp engine has no credibility among the scientific Intelligentsia.

As for scientists. The scientists doing LENR mostly do not have my respect because they refuse to look for every possible error in their experiments – as, for example, MFMP do. As a result the positive results they get are not worth much. It is a real shame – but then as MFMP have found when you cros-check everything evidence that seemed convincing tends to vanish.

@Mats
It is not about what you and I believe. You stated, as a fact, that there is overwhelming evidence for some kind of anomalous effect in the LENR field and that is not true regardless of the opinions of Michael McKubre and Jed Rothwell. There would be many publications in scientific journals if it was true. The Nobel Committee should have an easy choice next year.

As for LENR evidence, I can understand why some non-scientists find it compelling.

The best argument for them against it is that if it were to exist there would be now be real eidence, such as Rossi promised – but did ot deliver. Such as Defkalion promised – but did not deliver. Such as Brouillion promised, but…. You get the pattern.

If any one of these “real evidence” companies had anything that would stand up to either a scientific or a business test they would become very big news indeed very quickly.

And LENR+ is scientifically very easy to prove real, if it exists. An independent lab with a decent flow calorimeter would do the trick.

It would be a big step towards reducing the stigma about LENR if the claimed “scientific” Lugano report authors replied to scientific critique in the normal way instead of clamming up.

They do have enough data to resolve questions. If Rossi has working LENR+, then a test such as the authors of the report did should be enough to make people think.

You can maybe understand why there is stigma if when a test has clear issues that could be resolved these are left hanging. That is the opposite of a proper scientific reply but what is expected if the test is flaky.

@Gunnar
You might believe what you want.
Much smarter and more competent people have discussed this for years, and the evidence is overwhelming. You’d better discuss with them. Talk with Michael McKubre or Jed Rothwell.

@Mats:
“overwhelming evidence for some kind of anomalous effect in the LENR field”
Please Mats, try to be objective. Very few active on this blog agree with you. There is certainly no overwhelming evidence for an anomalous effect. In that case, by no doubt, main scientific community should have shown their interest. Reports should have been published in main scientific journals. The truth is that LENR engage only a small portion of scientists, some believers and many others sceptical.

@Axil
I really don’t know if there’s any particular competitor.
My experience is that those kind of statements from Rossi are often not based on any exact details. Could as well be to mislead.
However, if Rossi’s E-Cat works, there should be several groups trying to replicate now.
In any case, it would be interesting to know how many LENR companies there are in stealth mode now. And since there’s overwhelming evidence for some kind of anomalous effect in the LENR field, real progress shouldn’t be far away, if it gets less stigmatized and more people finally get involved. It’s about time!

This feedback from Aldo Proia (Prometeon) must be how Rossi knows about his dangerous competition. The emergence of this company must be well known in the LENR community. Many people must know who this alternative supplier is. A secret that many people share is not a secret. Mats, who is this dangerous competitor to Rossi? As an excellent reporter of LENR News, you must know who this company is. Do we need to wait for your next book for this information to be revealed?

“…we have already turned the page to follow an alternative and very promising route to get clean energy from LENR; the challenge is very stimulating and the scientists involved in the project are very well prepared and motivated.

The only good thing we can say about Mr Rossi is that he has the merit of having broken the wall around LENR and that finally this important, clean and cheap energy source has started receiving the attention it deserves.”

Hi Mats. How about a new message string or at least some comments from you regarding the piece by Aldo Proia (Prometeon) on e-catworld.com in which he describes how Rossi has failed to demonstrate or follow through with sales to bona fide customers who have the money, filled out the papers, and tried to obtain a so-called megawatt plant?

Maybe I am not understanding you. My null hypothesis is that Rossi is not faking. If he’s faking, he knows full well that there is no danger. Therefore, the lack of protective precautions could be evidence that he’s faking. It doesn’t prove it, of course. It’s just another piece of evidence on the issue and it tends to disprove the null hypothesis.

I must disagree with your logic. If Rossi is NOT deliberately falsifying his experiments then his technical incompetence, as demonstrated by statements he makes that he subsequently contradicts, must be phenomenal! So any argument requiring him to be aware of a technical inconsistency must fall!

@Mats – you sound so reasonable – but only by ignoring anything that does not fit your views.

The authors of this report clearly want to be meticulous in validating their results. They state that they stored all the PCE-830 data to answer possible questions. The anomaly we mention can be cleared up with the stored data, one way or another.

If you are right, then no doubt they will issue a clarification, for example showing the data that proves resistance to vary by a factor of 3.3. It is not plausible that they would do nothing given the inconsistency in the data, if they were able to explain it.

OK, maybe they need time for this. How much will you give them. One months? Two? One year?

Now for the science points. You have moved to the grounds that even if the COP is overestimated by a factor of 3, LENR is proven because of the difference in measured COP between the two active tests.

This is a much stronger argument than trying to demolish the argument showing the X3.3 anomaly.

However it requires the optical measurement to be well understood. Even ignoring errors in the optical measurement, assuming everything the authors say is true – and we know they are ignoring at least one significant optical effect, the view factor from the 45 degree angle fins – the numbers are marginal.

The change in input power between 1250C and 1400C test is 14%. The change in optically measured output power between 1250C and 1400C is 34%. Leading to a 17% difference in COP between the two cases. That is similar to the calculated power errors of +/- 8%. Given there are effects, and hence extra errors, that the authors simply ignore that cannot be good evidence for extraordinary new physics.

Note how the X3.3 factor changes things. A X7 anomaly turns into a 17% anomaly.

Don’t be swayed by confirmation bias: the “replications” of Rossi, like DGT, are provably some combination of technically incompetent and blind to expert advice, or deliberately inflating results.

I don’t imagine the Swedish profs are in any way dishonest. I do however think that they are out of their depth, as is shown by the technical mistakes we know exist in the report. Had they been more on the ball, accepting criticism and revising the report as needed, I’d reckon that was lack of knowledge but no bar to an eventual safe result. But they are not responding to the real criticism. that leaves me with grave doubts that they will ever sort out the anomalies we know, let alone the further anomalies that we don’t know, if they exist!

Specific comments

“As I explained before — an error in emissivity, and thus temperature, is important only for the convection term”.
No, since e changes non-linearly with temperature, an error in emissivity alters the relative power values. Overall e changes by 200%, we need only a 17% change in relative power. The use of Al2O3 as a high temperature thermography target is very problematic.

“The discussion on transparency hasn’t given any substantial indication for large errors, given that the transparency occurs in the visible spectrum and most part of the energy is radiated at longer wavelengths.”

The error due to transparency occurs at wavelengths smaller than 4.5um, where more than 1/3 of the power is radiated. So this is provably large.
See this recent experimental work on alumina, postdating what the authors reference by some 40 years:http://qirt.gel.ulaval.ca/archives/qirt2006/papers/087.pdf

Note also that different types of pure alumina show very different emissivities. We do not know what type of alumina is used here.

Personally, I’m not content with the data here. I don’t think we properly understand all the error mechanisms or how the 17% was measured. part of the problem is that the authors go into great detail on how they have estimated emissivity for the dummy, but do not give such detail for the active test. we do not know how they have worked out emissivity and they say they are using data which clearly has a few points deviating by 10% or so due to experimental error. Rather than take a smooth curve (we know the real curve for emissivity must be smooth from how it is constructed) they are taking a pointwise linear interpolation of the old experimental data. Unwise. But we can’t work out the consequences of this without their figures for measured temperature and inferred emissivity.

Yes, that photo is hilarious. Imagine running a potentially explosive high energy nuclear reaction at 1400 degrees C inside a metal tube AND NO SHIELDING of any sort. Nothing to protect the experimenter if it melts down, has thermal runaway (it has no forced cooling system) or if it blows up. Nothing at all. Well… maybe the white coat is asbestos and Kevlar … but I doubt it.

No real experiment of this sort would be done in this manner without a substantial blast wall and radiation shield between the experimenter and the experiment. Rossi *must* know it’s a fake and all the power comes from the wall socket.

@Mats: Personally I have never said that such a material does not exist. I have only stated that I am not aware of any such material. And if this new material can be shown to have the necessary characteristics, and to have been actually used during the tests, it then raises the question why the report is misrepresenting the materials used in the experiment?

I completely agree with you: someone is telling the story that three-phase currents are needed to have special pulses or (rotating) magnetic fields etc.

The pulses are the standard ones coming from a Fusion Controller; there is no special design of pulses. You can check the PCE 830 display.
The three-phases are not needed as it can be seen in the photo where Rossi is watching thre hot-cats. Each of them has a single phase power supply. So three phase is only needed for measurement purposes, maybe.
Moreover, the conduction angle in the test run is such that the Fusion controller is working in 2/0 mode: it means that at any given point in time either two or zero SCR are conducting. Zero is obvious; when two SCR are conducting current flows from one phase to another one. You never have a three phase system.
The current is flowing this way: L1-L2, L2-L3, L3-L1.
Full stop.

Let’s leave the material of the resistors aside, at least for a moment.

It does not require more than the average engineer to realize that the way the heat is produced can be of no consequence to the “bone marrow”.

If the designer of the experimental setup had intended to make it transparent and convincing to the broad public he would not have used a three phase controller with a wide band power analyzer to measure the input power. He would also not have used an IR camera to measure the output power.

Instead he should have used DC power to heat the “reactor” and calorimetry along the lines sketched by Giancarlo.

But I he did not. I can only guess that for lack of fusion he designed the setup to create confusion.

I think we should be careful when reading datasheet so to be sure that we full understand them. And we should be careful when expressing opinions on the possibility that what Rossi said regarding the resistances in his hot cat can be achieved.

This is the value listed in the data sheet you mentioned:

Volume Resistivity ohm•cm 100 – 1,000,000 dopant dependent

Here I read that the resistivity and not the resistivity as a function of temperature is dopant dependent. That the resistivity in a semiconductor is dopant dependent is well known from school: you start from an insulator and as far as you add dopants you get less resistance.
This is true, in a sense, for temperature dependance as well, but it is not in the data sheet so that we can not know how much it is.

But this is not the major issue; the values above call for a simple problem: given the lower resistivity value listed, how long and how thick must be the resistance of the hot cat to provide a 0,5 Ohm value? And what is the power volume density with, let’s say, 300 Watt dissipated inside?
Since the inconel has a resistivity about 1.000.000 times lower, maybe we should have a wire 1.000.000 times shorter or 1.000 times thicker or a combination. Are you sure? What are we speaking about? Did you see the dimensions of a 100 W SiC element? Are you sure you can put 9 of them inside the hot-cat?

OK, yes see your point about the resistivity drop not occurring at the “right” temperature — it should be at or near to its lowest point at the temps indicated by the ITPR2 (450ish C [750C for Kanthal]). But in their post MFMP also mention that:

“Set volume resistance can vary by a factor of 4 by “doping” – sound familiar???”

And they link to this document, which seems to indicate that the resistivity is dopant dependent:

If I am understanding this correctly, it means that the specific slope and inflection point of the resistance drop can be manipulated by dopants.

Also, the brochure for Kanthal heaters seems to indicate that the resistivity at low temperatures is strongly affected by “impurities” (page 11). This implies that the resistive properties of SiC could be manipulated fairly easily.

The fact that it is too brittle to be turned into a wire is more of an issue.

But I think Mats point about exercising caution before making such grand statements as “no such material exists!” still holds here. First we were told that no material with such properties exists. Then it turns out that actually it does and its not even that exotic — pretty commonplace actually.

The next pronouncement is — well such materials exists but not in a wire. OK, but maybe they don’t need to be a property of the wire. The Kanthal SiC and SilCarb heating elements are not wires. Or maybe there is a way to dope a wire to endow it with similar properties.

Whatever the answer turns out to be, I think we can safely move this “non-linear resistivity decrease” firmly out of the list of “miracles” needed for the the e-cat to work as reported in the ITPR-2. Which, as far as I’m concerned, means that the 3x COP joule heating discrepancy is no longer such a damning critique. Yes, there are still significant unknowns about how exactly it is engineered, but it clearly doesn’t fly in the face of everything we know about how (semi-)conductors work, nor is it a miraculous materials science discovery worthy of the Nobel prize (as some have mockingly asserted).

“@everyone
I find it interesting that several people here discussed the material in the resistors, claiming that the characteristics with strong negative resistivity vs temperature required a novel material. Now, a little research by MFMP shows that such a material is commercially available.”

—

Correct, this material personally I already knew, but it’s not seems to me “Inconel” that the Authors declared clearly in TPR2 as Inconel resistors. Inconel is an alloy mainly based on Ni,Cr,Fe,Mo…. not based on SiC.
Am I wrong?

@Mats:
“I really don’t believe that this calorimetry would have been more immune to discussion than the one performed…”‘
True, however, a few proper positive colorimetric test woud make a great impact on the main scientific community and most of mankind’s energy problem would be solved.
It´s a pity Rossi dont understand this, or does he?

“By the way — your discussion here before on Giancarlo’s proposal for calirometry showed perfectly well how there will always be new motives for discussion. I really don’t believe that this calirometry would have been more immune to discussion than the one performed. That is wishful thinking, if anything”

May I dare to suggest that this is not a realistic point of view?

By enclosing the reactor in an externally thermally insulated chamber with water cooled walls all heat leaving the reactor by convection and thermal radiation will be collected and transferred to the cooling water. In order to calculate the power produced in the reactor all you need to know is the mass flow and the temperature increase of the cooling water.

With this simplification the report could have been 23 pages instead of 53, and the number of possible objections would have been reduced by a factor of 3 … squared.

“@everyone
I find it interesting that several people here discussed the material in the resistors, claiming that the characteristics with strong negative resistivity vs temperature required a novel material. Now, a little research by MFMP shows that such a material is commercially available.
Try to learn from this when claiming things and making assumptions.”

Several days ago I posted this about SiC, the material that the MFMP guys just discovered:

@Maryyugo andrea.s and everybody
Thanks andrea.s. I’m glad you appreciate that I invite everyone to discuss.

Maryyugo — We all agree calibration could be improved. But no-one has yet shown that the error can be of such magnitude as to eliminate the calculated COP. I’ve been through all this.
Stefan Boltzmann’s law is used to calculate the power, but using the same emissivity that you insert into the camera, it means returning to the intensity measured by the camera, thus making the temperature irrelevant.
As I explained before — an error in emissivity, and thus temperature, is important only for the convection term.
The discussion on transparency hasn’t given any substantial indication for large errors, given that the transparency occurs in the visible spectrum and most part of the energy is radiated at longer wavelengths.
As for calorimetry you don’t know if flow calorimetry would have been readily feasible with the hot cat since you don’t know the characteristics of the reaction (if there is any) and it’s requirement of control. The outside person who seems to understand this most is David Roberson — check his posts on Vortex-L about various mathematical models that he has made since three years know, closely describing observed behaviors.
By the way — your discussion here before on Giancarlo’s proposal for calirometry showed perfectly well how there will always be new motives for discussion. I really don’t believe that this calirometry would have been more immune to discussion than the one performed. That is wishful thinking, if anything 😉

@everyone
I find it interesting that several people here discussed the material in the resistors, claiming that the characteristics with strong negative resistivity vs temperature required a novel material. Now, a little research by MFMP shows that such a material is commercially available.Try to learn from this when claiming things and making assumptions.

MFMP (esp. Bob Greenyer) has found a Silicon Carbide resistor that seems to fit very closely with the TPR2 observed steep resistance drop across relatively lower temps and then stability over higher temperatures. It also melts at 1625 C.

Curious to hear reactions to this. It seems to contradict assertions that “no such material exists.” If this does indeed fit the bill, then I guess the question is how to reconcile this with the statement in the report that the resistor in inconel. Pure speculation could be that inconel was ‘doped’ or with SiC in some fashion. The report could simply be wrong about the (entire) resistor being made of inconel.

I don’t know how to link to the post directly, but it is currently at the top of their Facebook page:

The good news, I believe that MFMP and the collective wisdom of the LENR community has enough collective knowledge at this juncture to show over unity energy gain in an E-Cat
replication. The bad news if you are a Rossi supporter, as I understand patent law, when any capability or method of a device is publicly demonstrated, that capability or method cannot be patented and is open source public property.

Considered as open source, if that nickel powder is publically demonstrated as functional as a means to over unity energy gain, Rossi will have significant patent problems.

“Mats is a real gentleman and honest person hosting all of this criticism on his blog and taking the time to answer politely.”
*
I’ve always thought that Mats was completely honest. And despite a lot of suggestions to the contrary from skeptics, I very much doubt that the Swedish scientists are not also honest. The problems are that being honest, Mats and the scientists have a low index of suspicion that other people are dishonest and they have not been sufficiently diligent and enthusiastic in testing for deception and trickery. That may have been fine early on when nobody knew much about Rossi’s colorful background. But it is not an adequate performance now that this is known and that the issues of thermocouple placement and steam dryness were raised with reference to the earlier work.

I didn’t say that the camera calculated power from that. The *experimenters* calculated the power from the surface temperature.

“An IR camera measures the luminous intensity which is basically radiated power per angle. Based on given emissivity it then calculates the surface temperature.”

We’re into minutiae here. The IR camera responds to a narrow range of wavelengths. That’s not a direct measurement of the total power output as you suggest. It’s an indirect one compared to envelope or flow calorimetry. And the output power is calculated from the inferred surface temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which places the temperature in a term taken to the fourth power. That was my point. But you know all that.

The points I have been making are:

– there is no need for thermal cameras and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at all (as demonstrated capably by Giancarlo and colleagues). Certainly they aren’t needed in measuring the old ecats but a surprise to me, the hot cat can also be measured quite conveniently by flow calorimetry using ordinary water as a coolant. Thanks again, Giancarlo.

– thermal cameras leave open a number of avenues for significant to extreme errors

– those errors can be somewhat mitigated with careful calibration over the entire temperature range of the experiment

– proper calibration was not done by the Swedish scientists and Levi

– in addition the input power measurement could have been spoofed with a number of techniques and deliberate errors which the experiments could have but did not rule out by the use of their own power source ahead of Rossi’s experiment (between the mains and the experiment).

– thus, proper calibrations have NEVER been done in ANY Rossi controlled experiment which includes all experiments on the ecat that have been made public.

That leave the experiments open to deceit and sleight of hand as well as errors. Those could be easily ruled out but never have been. That’s uh… how do I put it? Not good?

(1) Were they told about the corrugated surface?
(2) Did they say the surface temperature was safe, or the total power out calculation was safe?
(3) Were they given the temperature (higher than usual)?

Expert opinion counts for something – but only if experts are given the real problem

Objection: why not do a dummy run (COP 1 with no charge) at the same temperature as the experiment, i.e. dissipating 3KW.

Reply (anticipated in the TPR2) : we feared that the inconel resistors would break.

Objection: since Joule dissipation increased by a factor 6.2, then power consumption must have increased x6.2, so the reactor consumed 3kW

Reply (Rossi): no, the resistors are not inconel but doped semiconductors and their resistance increases – no, sorry, decreases by a factor 3.4 with temperature.

Objection: with the smaller resistance value, reduced by a factor 3.4, the current pulse width expected doesn’t match figure 5. If you use the original resistance, the pulse width is in line with figure 5 and consumption is 3KW

Reply (Rossi): figure 5 refers to a a setup check in AC current overload and not to the experiment

Objection : but figure 5 is there to quantify harmonic content so it should -as a minimum- represent the experiment. If it is a setup check in AC overload (current peaking at or above 200A) then based on the pulsewidth the consumption was 3KW. So there was a dummy load capable of withstanding 3KW, why wasn’t it used for the dummy run ?

@Thomas
I think you have to show that it can be of the order to reduce the estimated COP to 1.
The experimenters have used a method which according to experts on the field is a standard procedure, taking into account variable emissivity according to the literature. And you claim that an error due to emissivity in the visible spectrum, where a minor part of the energy is radiated, can reduce the estimated COP by a factor more than 3. You’ll have to specify that with a calculation.
That’s my opinion.

@Mats
Probability has always been controvertial. Objective Bayesians have more powerful tools than anyone else, and a sounder picture., but m,any don’t like the maths. Prior probabilities are difficult.

Let me be clear. We have an experiment which has an unknown error via a mechanism which all agree exists, not considered by the authors of this report. And you ask me to quantify it?

Maybe it can’t be quantified. Are you saying taht because we don’t know how big an error is we should assume it is negligible? Something wromg there.

This error is relevant only if you want to say that the extra power out claimed for 900 (=2700) rather than 800 (=2400) W shows COP > 1.

I don’t want to argue this. But if you do want to argue it, you need to show that the calculations of power are linear, and hence that temperature dependent errors are negligible.

@Thomas
Bayesian probability is controversial. I belong to the subjectivists who argue that Bayesian probability corresponds to a personal belief.
Consider economists calculating risks for various financial instruments. I don’t agree much with them. There are always Black Swans.

Your discussion on transparency is too vague. Show me a calculation that indicates the order of magnitude of a possible error. Remember that most of the energy is emitted through wavelengths outside the visible spectrum where transparency occurs.

“Is there a risk that mankind will be deprived from free energy if Rossi refuse? Not at all, the market will prove if he is right or wrong (statement by Andra Rossi)”.

Now that we know that there is two or more possible developers of the E-Cat, the future prospects for LENR is a lot more promising. Competition is always great. It brings out the best in all concerned. For engineers, it keeps their nose to the grindstone. Think about Edison and Tesla and the development of electric power. Composition is what the market is all about. Competition will force Rossi to send more time in the lab and less time at his blog.

My best guess at who the competitor is…Luca Gamberale, former CTO of the Italian company Mose srl that at a time not long past was part of the joint venture Defkalion Europe, owned together with DGT. I think that Gamberale now heads this own LENR company.

Gamberale or someone else must have got a hold of the recently released micrographts of Rossi’s powder. If you have that powder, you are 90% there.

@Mats:
The discussion over inverted clamp, waveforms, emissivity etcetera is not much more than a funny game as long as not all data from the test is available. To estimate the probability that any e-cat have a COP above one you may look at the outcome of other inventions presented with similar approach. Almost free energy, no hazards, secrets that cannot be revealed, the inventor always present, no really independent tests allowed. Yes, once Rossi reactor was tested by specialist and failed. Rossi has been offered truly independent tests on two occasions (Dick Smith and NASA) and declined.

From a scientific point of view, the first thing to establish is the presence of the (so called) Rossi effect. For this, the early water cooled reactor, with a claimed COP around ten, should be used by professionals independent from Andrea Rossi. To accept a more complex test approach is close to scientific misconduct. Without the Rossi effect established, the fuel and ash are of no interest.

Is there a risk that mankind will be deprived from free energy if Rossi refuse? Not at all, the market will prove if he is right or wrong (statement by Andra Rossi).

There are situations in which probabilities are relevant – representing likelihood, but a frequentist interpretation does not work. The is (objective) Bayesian probability theory.
Two hypotheses, for example Darwinism and creationism, can be compared and the most likely determined in situations where an ensemble of worlds is obviously impossible.

We have hypotheses in cosmology, some of which are considered more likley than others, without evidence from an ensemble of universes.

If you don’t allow that, then there are a lot of scientific hypotheses you can say nothing about. Including LENR (except that it is not often elaborated into some form precise enough to be disprovable and hence a scientific hypothesis).

IR cameras.
Do not measure total radiant power. They measure power in a frequency range. When a material is transparent in some other range this will not affect the thermography temperature given. However it will make the total radiant power variable, dependent on the temperature and emmissivity of the surface on which the transparent material is mounted in the band it is transparent.

For alumina that is an error that gets larger as the temperature increases.

@abbe
Well, ok… Useless, kind of…
Choosing samples for statistic analysis is an art. Many scientists do significant errors. Good read on this us “Thinking, fast and slow” by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman. Fun to read by the way.

@Mats: Good. How large, and similar, the population of known cases you are basing your estimate of a future outcome on goes into the confidence level of your estimated probabilities. Thus I would argue that what Gunnar did is still technically correct, even though the confidence levels will, of course, be very low.

Having two or more developers and/or replicators of the E-Cat increases the likelihood of demonstrating the E-Cats capability which is the ultimate purpose of the TPR2 test. I am asking those in the know who it is.

From Rossi’s blog

Marco Serra
November 20th, 2014 at 2:51 AM
Dear Andrea,
you said that “We cannot feed more information to our competition, which now is very powerful”. My question is: how can any competitor be powerful without knowing the core effect that drive the ECat ? Do you know of any lab that succeded in replication of the Rossi Effect even in a minimal part ?
God bless you
Marco

@abbe
You know well that you need similar cases. Examples of various experiments or inventions are not similar enough to use for statistics. To many particulars. And in the case we discussed here – the hypothesis on inverted clamp based on a duty cycle analysis we have no cases at all. Nothing to build statistics on. It’s just a bad habit of using probabilities in common language when you mean “I believe this”.

@Mats: Please show me why not. I have taken a number of courses in statistics, and even taught it, so I am very interested in an explanation of mine, and others, erroneous way of application of this knowledge.

@Mats: No, it is not. For instance the engineering practices of estimating MTBF of new designs are very often based on known statistics from similar systems. Which is similar to why Gunnar did in his comment.

An illustration is that if you would buy a new 6-sided die, you assume that there is an equal chance of each side to show up, without extensive testing of just that particular die before you use it.

No Maryyugo, thermography cameras don’t measure surface temperature and then calculate power from that. An IR camera measures the luminous intensity which is basically radiated power per angle. Based on given emissivity it then calculates the surface temperature.

MFPM’s newest attempt to simulate Rossi’s setup, in so far as electrical heater calibration is concerned, may be bad news for believers. They are able to raise the device temperature to 1150 degrees using only 914 watts. And that is a naked rod in room air, unprotected by an outer tube such as Rossi used, which would tend to provide some thermal insulation to the core and a higher temperature for a given power input.

It may turn out that this group can demonstrate that all of Rossi’s heating could have been provided by the electrical input. That may already be the case in the event that emissivity issues with the alumina overestimated the surface temperature of Rossi’s “reactor” during the test.

@Mats:
You asked for numbers.
There are a large number of inventions which are contrary to the laws of nature as we know them. A very small part, if any, appears as a working product. Seen in this light, the probability that the e-cat will solve the world’s energy problems is very close to zero.

Mats, can you explain how an IR camera measures power “directly”? A heat flux-measuring calorimeter (for example Seebeck envelope or liquid cooled flow calorimeter) measures power the most directly. The calculations involve only first power computations. All the heat from the process is constrained to flow through the measuring system by its design. And even those systems require calibration to be sure all heat loss and gain is accounted for. For examples, see Storm’s work.

An imaging system estimates surface temperature from which an estimate of power is made using fourth power calculations. This is a very indirect method and highly error-prone. The radiation/convection estimation method is even more dependent than the others on accurate calibration over the entire range of temperature and power expected.

As we know, the current experiment involved calibration limited to an insufficient range. Other problems include Rossi’s participation in the process but we don’t need to go there.

@Thomas
“90%ish”?
Probabilities are based on large number of cases. You don’t have that.
It’s an opinion or a guess. As such it’s fine.
Then, what error do you refer to, discounting the ‘duty cycle evidence’, which is not an evidence?

1: There are by now two known explanations of the current shown in the photo in the report. Both involve a reversed current clamp, just not the same clamp. There is no alternative hypothesis that explains the reported current waveform.

2: The articles by Carl-Oscar Gullström does not explain the change of isotopes between the fuel and the ash.

3: The concepts of “proof” is not used in science. It is only valid in formal logic and in mathematics. (And in philosophy, but that’s another discussion altogether.)

So, without “guessing”, without andre.s duty cycle evidence, we have an error in the figures that is unexplained and leaves COP unknown, possibly 1. We have another unquantified source of error that removes any other evidence (the 1250C/1400C power out change) for COP > 1.

If you don’t accept andrea.s evidence, about waveform duty cycle I agree, it is then just not known what the error is, it could as easily give COP=1 as something else. If you do accept it (not guessing) then COP = 1 is more probable though not certain.

I don’t think i understand your reply. I agree alumina is non-transparent in “this” interval – the one measured by the IR camera.

I’m saying that it is provably transparent at higher wavelengths (because we can see it is so). Therefore we don’t know what error this will make.

I’m not guessing that. Axil , or you, or the report authors, is guessing if you assume any evidence for COP > 1 based on the IR measurement being better than 10% accurate between the 1250C and 1400C measurements.

When you take into account a likely X3 factor on input measurement of power the error on output measurement is only 10%.

@Thomas
Same answer goes for this. The IR camera measures output power. Not temperature. Temperature is calculated.
The only reason emissivity is important is the one Giancarlo provides — that a wrong value of the temperature will give a wrong estimate of convection. But the error has to be significant.

– Interesting to hear that no-one now claims that inverted clamps can be proven from the results. Let me remind you that you can conclude almost anything when you study other people’s work or experiments, by making your own assumptions. E.g. Cimpy’s assumption about miracles, which is a good starting point for effectively influencing possible conclusions.

That is true for many people. However the points made here about an anomaly in the figures that could be explained – probably is best explained – by power mismeasurement is not such an asumption.

The anomaly is a fact. The fact that it would be explained by power mismeasurement is a fact.

It is up to the authors of the report to explain it in some other way if they want the report to stand as evidence for COP > 1.

This is quite different from all the other issues – problems with alumina etc. These make the conclusions unsafe – but they do not PROVE that the conclusions are wrong.

The report as it stands is provably wrong. It is also provably correctable by the authors, so it is surprising they have not yet done this.

@Thomas
Don’t guess. There’s no best guess in science.
Alumina should be non-transparent at this wavelength interval. And if it would be slightly transparent, the explanation I provided below explains why you don’t have to worry. The camera measures output power, even if it would come from inside.

@Giancarlo
What you point out is that there seems to be diverse information on emissivity of alumina in the literature. As I said, confirming measurements of the emissivity would give the best answer. Patience.

If the alumina is transparent over any range with significant radiated power the thermography will be innacurate.

Why?

Because the emissivity figure assumes the alumina is opaque, and emits whatever it does as determined by its own characteristics. If it is transparent then the radiation at that wavelength is determined by the emissivity and temperature of whatever is seen through it. That could be higher or lower than expected.

Thermography assumes all surfaces are opaque (alumina will be this if thick enough).

We know at visible wavelengths the alumina is not opaque because internal structure is visible.

In any case – the main issue for this report is that our best guess from the data makes the COP ~ 1 not COP ~ 3. The authors of the report need to address this and either explain the data in some way that allows COP ~ 3, or accept that they are measuring COP ~ 1.

I think, if I were you, I would find it food for thought that 4 years on from initial COP=10 or more tests Rossi’s best product now appears to have COP ~ 1 when tested carefully.

Actually I do not think I’ve well undestood your reply. Figure 6 and Plot 1 indicate that the emissivity @ 1200° and 1400°C is 0.4. The authors assumed that figure in their calculations.

The plots I provided (can be found in the literature, they are not mine) clearly show that in the range 7.5 – 13 microns the emissivity at 750°C is never below 0.5. It stays over 0.9 between 7.5 and 11+ microns. From the behaviour of the curves it seems that the range over which the emittance exceeds 0.9 will ever increase @ 1700 K.
I do not think that the choice of alumina was a good choice as far as thermography is concerned. We were used, in previous experiments, to seeminlgy black bodies. Now we are facing partially white and partially black bodies. It’s difficult to avoid errors:

Mats, do you really believe that the core surface was @ 1410°C (average!) and the inner core at a higher temperature (average!)?
Remember that they say they used also the second camera (that has a 900°C limit) to verify the simmetry of temperature distribution over the core surface. It is strange; isn’t it?

@Giancarlo
(Updated comment):
Sorry, now I see that you referred to the emittance diagram in your link. That’s emittance vs wavelength and could fit well with Figure 6 and Plot 1 in the report (emissivity vs temperature for a larger wavelength interval). I don’t remember the interval for the IR camera.

@Giancarlo
I’m not sure I understand what you mean with (2). As I said it seems alumina is non-transparent in this wavelength interval. That doesn’t mean that emissivity (epsilon) is 1. I don’t think there’s any connection between emissivity and transparency. I guess steel would be non transparent to most wavelengths but emissivity is very low, especially when it’s polished.
BTW, I think the experimenters intend to measure emissivity of the alumina used as a verification of the values used. Then we’ll know. Patience.

But since we’re interested in the radiated power, not the temperature, this hypothetical temperature is of minor importance. It’s only a way of expressing the power that the instrument has measured. Would you agree? Well, before answering, please check with people who are experts on this.

I can’t agree with you mainly for two reasons.

1) I agree with you that emissivity is not essential in a sense, since you use it twice: the first time to evaluate temperature; the second one to evaluate radiated power putting it back in the SB expression. The two errors compensate exactly each other. But, you use the temperature to estimate the convection term as well: and if you pur a higher temperature in your formulae you get a higher dissipation. As far as the two dissipation channels are of the same order of magnitude (or even worse when convection predominates) you get sensible errors. That could be very important in the dummy measurement where they get a COP = 1. This might also explain the 700 W increase.

2) The alumina is a perfect black body (epsilon = 1) just in the thermocamera measurement range.
See upper figure – emittance – in [1].
So assuming epsilon = 0,4 can be dead wrong.

– Cimpy – I believe it’s an error to assume that something would be a miracle. With that assumption you basically make any new knowledge or discovery impossible. Here are some ways in which the result could be explained:

– Interesting to hear that no-one now claims that inverted clamps can be proven from the results. Let me remind you that you can conclude almost anything when you study other people’s work or experiments, by making your own assumptions. E.g. Cimpy’s assumption about miracles, which is a good starting point for effectively influencing possible conclusions.

– Regarding emissivity, errors on the heat measurement. If I remember right alumina is not transparent to the wavelengths measured by the camera that was used. In any case — an IR camera measures the luminous intensity which is basically radiated power per angle. Based on given emissivity it then calculates the surface temperature. If the emissivity is wrong, or if there would be a minor term from transparency, the calculated temperature will be wrong. It will be an hypothetical surface temperature corresponding to the intensity measured. But since we’re interested in the radiated power, not the temperature, this hypothetical temperature is of minor importance. It’s only a way of expressing the power that the instrument has measured. Would you agree? Well, before answering, please check with people who are experts on this.
By the way — if the alumina was transparent in this wavelength interval, shouldn’t that be visible in the thermography images of the reactor?

The IR thermometry issues could be addressed theoretically, by estimating possible errors and bounding them based on material properties. The authors follow this approach, it is just that they have missed a whole load of possible errors. With no control that can detect these they need a much more profound theretical error analysis.

The Lugano report is not a valid scientific paper until it has been corrected. Obvious issues that must be addressed (and that any competent peer reviewer would highlight)

The X3.3 anomaly
The 1/2 / 1/sqrt(3) mistake
The effect of the fins on the effective emissivity of the device
The fact that seeing internal heat sources through the alumina, shaded, implies that the alumina is transparent at least at visible wavelenngths which makes IR tehrmometry unsafe without knowing the emissivity of the underlying heat sources

The report contains a clear anomaly. The authors need to address this and explain it. Just saying, with no other information, that they have ruled out one possible error source does not help a rational person, because the report anomaly remains.

For scientists, which this report is meant to convince, fexperimental data trumps anything else. The datya here just does not make sense.

In any case, I think you should first understand we di not need 32 days raw data, but enough data of the run to discard a reverse clamp (or other setup) matterrer. Few minutes of run while producing alleged excess coul be enough. The whole logs could be posted as addendum separately on the web, so that “paper” would not be wasted and data could be checked as MFMP did with data from Celani wires.

Second, about raw data in scientific paper, better you first read this (it is from 2011), might be it will enlight you.

Axil, that’s nonsense. Raw data, for example scatter plots, are presented all the time, both in preliminary papers and in published works, if it’s relevant. This report is not being published in main line journals and it’s being mostly ignored by the main line press because most scientists and newspeople who know about it don’t believe it.

Even though the TPR2 has not been accepted as a valid scientific paper, as a matter of form and convention raw data is never presented in such a paper and doing so might discredit the paper from possible acceptance. Forcing such a violation of standards might be construed as a gambit to discredit the TPR2 paper from eventual appropriated distribution.

Very satisfied, Mats has contacted the authors of the report and they have ruled out your conjectures… using compiled historic data and photographic evidence.
I have no reason to believe either party are mistaken or are being elusive or misleading in their statements.
This is the invention of the Wansui.

@Andrea S.: If I get you right, your analysis of the polarity of the current spikes in the photo shows that either the clamp show was reversed, or the measurement diagram in the report is faulty. Is that correct?

There are many possible mismeasurements, other than reversed clamp. For example, if the power recorded is switched from total power to one of the lines, which would give 1/3. If the three delta resistors are not exactly balanced this could deviate from 1/3 enough to make the observed value of 3.3328.

There may be current mismeasurements as well but I find it more difficult to think of them. I guess perhaps single line current instead of total RMS current?

What is certain is that the figures in the report are wrong – and I think it very poor that the authors have not yet responded to this fact with a correction.

Axil. You need to dig a bit deeper. That is, to understand what is going on.

Alumina is NOT a black body. Therefore although it has a well-defined emissivity for a given temperature that is assuming it is thick enough to be opaque, and even then depends on microstructure. Clearly not the case here. The (very old) reference shows alumina emissivity but that is total black body, not what is used for IR themography.

read the notes:
Conduct the measurement perpendicular to the material’s surface whenever the emissivity is less than approximately 0.90. In all cases, do not exceed angles greater than 30 degrees from perpendicular.

(this is not done because the fins mean the surface is seen at a large angle).

You are claiming you can be sure the IR thermography used is accurate to better than 10% over the range 1250-1400C. You cannot show this because it is not true.

Do you claim that a finned object of emissivity 0.4ish has the same emissivity as a plane surface? Of course not, there is self-reflection. In which case all the theory used, including the temperature assumed, will be wrong.

And that will apply top the active test, where e is low, much more than the dummy test, where e is higher.

Do you claim the total emission from a translucent material depends only on the surface temperature? Of course not, it depends on the temperature and emissivity of the hot surface you can see through the translucent material.

Abbe:
I agree on the measurement issues.
But since you bring it up, let me say that the figure 5 is not proof of an inverted clamp. I was the one to bring up the issue of peaks orientation but I thought it over.
There are however other informations one can derive from the figure, once more pointing at measurement errors by a factor three.
So the inverted clamp remains a good explanation, but not necessarily and even not likely on I3.
Try this link: I have summarized the issues including a deeper analysis of the figure 5, while debunking my own peak orientation objection.

Mats: since you don’t like anonimity, which I understand, i am posting under an explicit email address with my complete name: I suppose you can see it as blog administrator. If not I will send you a private email.

I am sending this memo to Rossi and to the TPR authors as well so that they know where to find me if they are interested.

There is a number of inconsistencies in the latest test report of the E-cat. Primarily these concern the input power measurements.

1: The picture of the power analyzer screen shows that one current clamp was inverted.
2: The tabulated figures of the currents and joule heating of the cables shows that the consumed power during the active run is higher than reported.

The simplest explanation of these observations is that one current clamp in fact were inverted, as this explains both. There have been additional hypothesis to explain the reported values, such as novel superconducting or resistive changes due to temperature. But these would only explain #2 above, even if they could be shown to be real effects, and have the further problem of that some additional claims of the report has to be wrong such as the material used to heat the reactor.

In addition there is the change of isotopic content of the fuel vs. the ash. The changes that are implied are very hard to understand from any proposed theory, including LENR, as multiple elements disappeared.

@axil: I never said that wakefield accelerators don’t work. They do, and are well understood. But you can’t today replace LHC with one of these. So I fail to see your point in this description of current activities at CERN.

Civil engineering has begun for the new Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment (AWAKE) at CERN. This proof-of-principle experiment will harness the power of wakefields generated by proton beams in plasma cells, producing accelerator gradients hundreds of times higher than those used in current radiofrequency cavities.

Like all of CERN’s experiments, AWAKE is a collaborative endeavour with institutes and organisations participating around the world. “But unlike fixed-target experiments, where users take over once CERN has delivered the facility, in AWAKE, the synchronised proton, electron and laser beams provided by CERN are an integral part of the experiment,” says project leader Edda Gschwendtner. “CERN’s involvement in the project goes well beyond providing infrastructure and services.”

Construction teams are already turning the area at CERN that housed the CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) experiment into a home for AWAKE.

“We have removed part of the proton beam line and cleared the area upstream of the CNGS target to make way for the AWAKE installation, including a laser and 10 metre plasma cell,” says Gschwendtner. “CNGS’s area downstream of the target, however, has been left untouched. As it is radioactive, we constructed a new shielding wall in July so that the AWAKE facility upstream can be a safe, supervised working area for users.”

The AWAKE facility will also feature a clean room for the laser, a dedicated area for the electron source and two new tunnels: one small tunnel to hold the laser beam (which ionises the plasma and seeds the wakefields); and a second, larger tunnel that will be home to the electron beam line (the “witness beam” accelerated by the plasma). These new tunnels are currently being carved out for the facility (see image).

The AWAKE team at the Max Planck Institute for Physics(link is external) in Munich, Germany, is preparing to move both equipment and know-how to CERN. “In Munich, we are working with a 3-metre prototype of the plasma cell,” says Allen Caldwell, AWAKE spokesperson. “Our focus is on the science: learning the properties of the plasma cell as well as possible before we start with the ‘real thing’.”

“We are also addressing a number of hardware issues,” says Patric Muggli, AWAKE Physics and Experiment Coordinator. “For example, we are creating valves that allow the laser, proton and electron beams to enter the plasma cell. These need to be extremely fast but also durable, opening and closing an unprecedented 40,000 times in its lifetime.”

Although new technology is being created for AWAKE, the experiment also re-uses existing equipment from CNGS, CLIC/CTF3 and other CERN facilities. The experiment will be conducted in two phases, the first starting in 2016.

Many, if not most, of the LENR detractors/skeptics base their viewpoint on a position that LENR can’t work because it contradicts the laws of physics. The heart of the matter lies in engineering. A good engineer will use the optimum physical principle to get the job done.

As a example, a Wakefield accelerator that is just a few feet in length uses a different set of physical laws to do what the CERN 17 mile diameter accelerator does. A scientist who specialized in nuclear physics may not understand what laws to apply to get his job done in a more optimized way. That does not make the physical principles applied in the optimized solution invalid. It just means that the engineers of the optimized solution have amazed the scientist to such a huge extent that the scientist is baffled into disbelief when he sees the results of the engineering.

Another example is the reactionless engine that NASA has just tested that supposedly violates Newton’s Laws of Motion. It turns out that the EMF field used in the engine pushes against the virtual particles in the vacuum.

This does not make the test that NASA conducted of that engine a SCAM or the engineers who understand what is going on morons.

Just because you state your opinion of the third party demo as a desperate and unscientific hope does not make it so. Use your claimed scientific arguments to refute the proposition in question. Use numbers if required.

“Your vigorous campaign to FUD this issue speaks to your unscientific bias against this demonstration. This irrational and deeply rooted prejudice about this subject should be evidence to an impartial observer to ignore your biased opinions”

Axil, you are not speaking to boys playing football all the time around and mocking to girls.
You’re speaking among people who knows enough of physic to understand your theories on how it could be working are flawed from the bottom.

Repeat that you’re right and the device does work as claimed – either because of no one knows for sure how it is built or because of (say – and sorry for this extreme example) tunneling might have met dark matter, is not an evidence or even something that could be accepted as logical.

Point is exactly you need at least a miracle there to believe to Cop > 1 and another one to believe to Ni62 in ash, while you could explain both with small mistakes from someone and a trick by someone else – especially from the “else” who already tricked in the past (and even many time).

Up to you to keep on being exchanged for a moron, for a “thirdy party” helper in this joke or for someone who does understand where matters are.

It is not a matter of faith, it is a physic matter that data are insufficient; and when data are insufficient, you simply cannot call for miracles, or you’re calling for believing. We do not want to believe.
At least, we want to know or to be convinced by data. Bring us data, starting with Logs from that PCE-830, for example. And then videos. Did you see the TPR1 ones?

The emissivity of alumina as a black body is well documented in the scientific literature and is rightfully referenced by the experimenters. The experimenters gave three well recognized references that validates the values that they have used. If they had used their own home grown values, then you would criticize the experimenters for unscientific practices. Your vigorous campaign to FUD this issue speaks to your unscientific bias against this demonstration. This irrational and deeply rooted prejudice about this subject should be evidence to an impartial observer to ignore your biased opinions.

Alumina becomes transparent at higher frequencies. Exactly when is variable and depends on microcrystalline structure.

The emissivity they use is from before the cameras they are using existed. it is the textbook (overall) emissivity value. That is not the same as emissivity at the frequency of the IR cameras.

In any case, the actual response cannot be defined by a single number because the material goes transparent. In that case (obviously) the radiation from it depends on the temperature of what you see thought it and the emissivity of that.

All the above is undeniable. Exactly how it affects results is not easy to calculate: but a 10% difference between 1250C & 1400C (or rather 150C or so lower than that, due to the fins) is par for the course.

I don’t blame the profs for not fully analysing the Al2O3 optical characteristics – the whole system is extremely complex. I do blame them for not realising the flakiness of their system – especially because they deliberately refused to run a control at a comparable temperature.

Coiled metal wire. You cannot know from the pictures whether there is coiled metal wire casting a shadow or coiled metal tape emitting light. It is just not clear. Though I think the second looks more likely.

OK – I was thinking 240V 13A here. 16A would just about do it but given this device can be turned up further than was done, it does not seem like even 230V 16A would be safe at COP 1 (as it seems to have).

It is not 7X! You are making a classic mistake. Suppose we have 100W input increase (12%), the output increases by 700W or 20%. We therefore need a 10% change in effective emissivity.

Also – the fins on the surface make the effective emissivity higher (when the Al2O3 is not transparent) in the same way a rough surface does. The profs did not consider this. It changes both the temperature – making it lower – and the power emitted. The two effects roughly cancel. But not exactly. Overall it is very complex.

Take home:
temps are a few 100C lower than stated
lots of uncertainty about what is the real power out
variation with temperature in the real power out error

There is no way that alumina transparency can increase by 7 times with only a 100C temperature rise. We are talking about comparing two rates of change here. Go back to the drawing board and dream up something else. In addition, the increase in alumina transparency would be countered by the coiled metal wire inside the alumina. That wire will never be transparent. That wire was colder than the core because it cast a shadow

The use of Al2O3 as an IR source inytroduces an error at higher temperatures that accounts for this. The mechanism is that when Al2O3 is transparent (at higher frequencies) the light emitted depends on the emitting surface beneath the Al2O3. This is likely hotter than the surface and also can have an emissivity > 0.4.

As temperature increases so a larger proportion of the emitted power lies within the range where the Al2O3 is transparent.

The use of Al2O3 for IR Thermography is a very bad idea. The thermography manuals say you should always measure emissvity < 1 material against cool backgrounds to get accurate results. In this case the background is not only hot, but hotter than the surface!

the control tests under different conditions (lower temperature) do not pick this up. Another defect in the experiment – control at operating temperature would have allowed the thermography to be properly evaluated.

My comment was light-hearted, but also technically true. Given COP of 1 and output power of 3kW-4kW you need more than single-phase input!

Of course for proof of principle it would be better to have DC from a bench PSU and at few hundred Watts power level, and no reason not to do that. Rossi I think finds 3 phase gives him a lot more ways to get apparent high COP. He needs these now that presumably the obviously flakey calorimetry of the earlier tests no longer cuts it.

If you meant that in order to spoof the results, Rossi needs 3+kW, then sorry. I misunderstood you or you were not clear. Around 3kW =/- a half, is the supposed **output** of the current device. A big come down from ecats which heated entire factories (2007 patent app) and had peak powers of 135kW (Levi, 2011).

Well, power input to the device was not 3 kW. Consumption, according to the Lugano paper, Table 7 and Plot 7, was always under 1kW. One kilowatt DC power supplies are commonplace and the heater in my room consumes 1600 watts from a single phase at only 115 volts AC (USA mains power).

The contents of the ceramic tube in the Dogbone Cat, aka the fuel, had no way of knowing if the heat it experienced was generated by an electric heating element or a gas flame. This is true even if the AC current is chopped by a regulator because the temperature variations inside the tube are extremely small over the AC period.

Hence the Lugano test could just as well have been done with DC current. This would have simplified measurement of input power. But we do not want it to simple do we? We must have something to brood over.

Right. In addition, the early ecat designs had two large electrical heaters. The smaller one was in the center of the ecat and the largest one was wrapped around the exterior of the device. This is means that it could only heat … wait for this … THE COOLING LIQUID!

And then there is the issue of adding heat to “control” a supposedly highly exothermic device. Sure, it would be reasonable to start such a device with a heater but Rossi said the heater is used for safety, He never managed to explain how that works. Some people on the Vortex email list tried to explain it but those explanations made no sense at all. One controls interior temperature of an exothermic device with variable COOLING not heating!

Rossi wants it both ways. His heater is supposedly for safety and yet he always describes the ecat as intrinsically safe because if it gets too hot, the nickel changes state and stops reacting.

As you say, if the so-called COP is 3, even if inefficiencies made it impossible to use exactly 1/3 of the heat, you could use most or ALL the output heat to make it self-sustaining. This might not be very useful industrially, but it would make one impressive demonstrator which would run without input power and remain extremely hot indefinitely. Or at least, until Mats and the experimenters needed to get refreshments and coffee, an event which, IIRC, ended one of Rossi’s early (2011?) demonstrations prematurely.

Yes, there are a variety of ways that flow calorimetry can be spoofed and from Rossi and Defkalion we would appear to have run through pretty well all.

As you say there are any number of clear indications that Rossi’s tests don’t work. To an investigating mind there are many absurdities.

Here is my current favourite. Rossi says that he is going to get COP=3 devices to work for electricity production by running them off gas.

Sounds sensible? Alas there is something very wrong. If the electrical power in can be replaced by burning gas, so it us used just for heat, then nothing is easier than to make a self-sustaining system. Take that COP=3 and keep 1/3 of it on the reactor to take the place of the input power. This is easy. Insulate the reactor, cool it with active cooling that is thermostatically controlled to keep to desired operating temperature. The hot coolant extracted provides power out with COP = infinity.

The “mouse and cat” configuration is equally absurd, for the same reason that a system that generates excess heat does not need heat power in to operate, except to kick-start.

It is surprising that in the face of such obvious absurdities otherwise rational and technically aware people continue to provide implicit or explicit support to Rossi’s enterprize.

Of course the output temperature sensor can also be “mismounted”, in this instance, too close to or in intermittent contact with the heater. And naturally, calibration over the full operating temperature range would rule this out.

There is a strong suspicion among skeptics that bad placement of the single output thermocouple is how Dr. Levi’s amazing early results, never repeated, were obtained. The suspicion is enhanced by the fact that it would have been cheap, easy, quick, and spectacular to repeat that experiment with proper calibration. This has been extensively discussed with Levi by Krivit on camera and reinforced by Dr. Brian Josephson and others by email. And it was never done, at least not in public.

That older ecat device was “shown” to have approximately 10 times (!!) the power ratio (“COP”) and power output of the current “hot cat”. It was very small, powered with single phase AC, controlled with a simple circuit card, and operated at moderate temperatures. Why such an earth shaking demonstrator was discarded and after three years, a much inferior and questionable device was exhibited defies explanation. And indeed, neither Rossi nor Levi has ever explained it.

Great flow calorimetry with impressive results for such a simple setup.

I should just say how the same technique can go wrong in the hands of somone who is not being careful, for whatever reason:

(1) the flow rate can be turned up so high that temperature differential is small

(2) the input water temperature can be considerably below ambient (as is usually true from a tap).

(3) the output temperature sensor can be so mounted that it is in thermal contact with ambient as well as the flowing water.

The result would be apparent heat generation even when there is none, because the output sensor will see some temperature in between ambient and the liquid temperature, whereas the input sensor will be measuring just the (lower temperature) liquid.

What is the lower limit of power that you can accurately measure, say within +/- 20% (sorry if you already said). Also the upper limit of dissipation before the limits of the materials are approached? And are you working with the MFMP people? They could sure use some help with their calorimetry!

I have at first to clarify that it was not me to perform the demonstration of the flow calorimeter: it was Mario Massa, one of the other people involved in GSVIT.
The incredible thing is that it took just one saturday to do the job; a few years ago Mario tested in the same way the Focardi-Piantelli reactor and the claimed excess heat disappeared immediately: Of course he was not admitted anymore to test the reactor; it seems that if you test a reactor with a good calorimetry the reaction disappears immediately.
Just like the last adiabatic calorimeter by Mizuno described recently by Jed Rothwell: as soon as the pump fails the reaction, instead of increasing since heat is no more removed, is immediately stopped. The interactions between the device under test and the testing setup are really incredible.

Maryyugo, we are professional engineers scattered all over Italy (I never met the others) with jobs not related in any way to CF. I’m running a company building power converters for trains and stations; I used to be a researcher in the field of optical transmission for more that 25 years dealing with the physics of the transmission channel.

The calorimeter can be adapted to different layouts (including an inner sleeve where the heat is removed only by radiation and convection); and, as a bonus, we can perform the measurements for free.

As MY said, and like so many cold fusion claims, Mizuno does not use any sort of reliable calorimetry. This is reminiscent of the Piantelli work from 1994, debunked by a team from CERN in 1996, but then repeated by the same team for another 15 years without correcting the problem, and of the annual claims of overunity from Swartz at MIT. The presence of hydrogen changes the thermal properties of the device, so the calibration is not representative of the actual run.

Presumably cold fusion claims so often involve inadequate calorimetry because when adequate calorimetry is used, the effect disappears.

It seems like a waste of time trying to reproduce their claims until they themselves do a credible experiment.

OK, this seems to be my day for haste makes waste. What I meant to say was that the tube was not thermally coupled to the heater by conduction but RATHER by radiation and convection alone. Now I think, I’ll quite while I’m ahead… if I’m ahead!

@Giancarlo and Branzell: Sorry. In my haste, I assumed that the heater was in contact with the cooling system tube and I must have skipped over the clear statement that it was not coupled to it by radiation and convection. My apology for this error!

@Axil: I can only wish Mizuno’s paper was as clear as Giancarlo’s. The use of temperature measurements at a few discrete sites within a highly complex device containing an electrical heater is just asking for errors. I only glanced at it but from what I can see, the complexity of the system defies the design of an adequate calibration method. Something affecting calibration may always be different during a power run because the measurement system is so wobbly (my best effort at a suitable scientific term for the moment). The obvious answer to this with a so-called COP (power ratio) of 2 or better is simply to insulate and use the exothermic reaction to sustain itself. At 100W, that would be quite convincing. Despite Rothwell’s reassurance to the contrary, that seems not to have ever been done by anyone, in a reproducible manner.

If Rossi does not want to cooperate, there is Mizuno who is very open and follows the scientific method.

Mizuno starts to have 50-100W , and maybe soon kW scale results, even if the COP is about 1.9.

Not as good as Rossi but still over unity.

Like Rossi, the source of power is heat not plasma (plasma prepares the electrodes) but heat, the metal is nickel, that H2 and D2 produce effects…


​1.The hero effort was for over 30 days continuous – with a COP of ~1.9
2.Something like 70 watts in and 130 thermal watts out
3.The input power is resistance heat (like Rossi) during the run and not the glow discharge as reported earlier
4.However, a glow discharge was applied for about one day to condition the nickel electrodes. It is said to form nanoparticles on the wire.
5.From the earlier paper and the SEM image (figure 19) the nanoparticles which are raised on the nickel look like bubbles or bumps instead of cracks. Without the glow discharge treatment there is NO GAIN.
6.About 20 grams of thin nickel wire was wound on a ceramic mandrel. This is over 100 meters of wire.
7.The wire was about .2 mm diameter.
8.The gas was D2 but there seems to be some confusion on that – whether D2O (heavy water vapor) or D2. Results with H2 are also good in the prior paper.
9.Pressure was about 150 Pa or about .02 psi during glow discharge and higher during the run.
10.Radiation is seen but it is orders of magnitude too low to account for the heat, yet they seem to be certain that the reaction is nuclear fusion.
11.They believe the design will scale, and have a reactor nearly ready which is capable of 10 kW.
12.They think the COP will rise, rather than fall with scale up.

“Finally, to Giancarlo, I know the argument will be made that the cooling within this test device is such that the desired temperature to operate a hot cat could not be reached.”

Not true. The energy transfer from the heating element to the energy absorbing jacket is via thermal radiation and, to a lesser degree, via convection. This has very little influence on the temperature of the test object. Apart from this detail I fully agree with your opinion. And forgive me Giancarlo for jumping in!

I strongly recommend that everyone look carefully at the link provided by Giancarlo in his response a few messages below this one. He has done what Mats and the Swedish scientists have consistently failed to do in their incredible dealings with Rossi. He has designed and demonstrated a clear, simple method of measuring the heat from a device like an ecat or a hot cat. It works within a few percent therefore if the device has a power ratio (so-called COP) of 3 or even 2, it will show with complete clarity. This, by the way, is what Dr. Levi purported to show in February 2011 but by comparison, his execution of the same principle was completely inadequate and as I have repeated “ad nauseam”, Levi never replied to any request to correct or even repeat it, he never even replied to email by Josephson.

Back to Giancarlo: not only is the method ideal but the explanation in the brief and elegant paper is perfectly clear. THIS is how an effective measurement on an ecat would have looked had one ever been made. Note that the equations are simple and direct. Note that the equipment is clean and well organized and can only do what is claimed for it.

There is no three phase heater. There is no phase change in the coolant. There is no opportunity to misplace electrodes without having it revealed immediately. In fact, accurate output recording of heat put in is consistent across a variety of input power and within a range better than 2%. Excellent work, Giancarlo! Not only that but note how the results are presented. Clear, brief, simple, easy to understand. Why can’t Rossi/Levi et. al. do that? (As you know, I have my own theories on that question!)

Maybe Mats can tell us why the Swedish scientists never required this sort of process and documentation. Surely they could have if they had wanted to, could they not?

Finally, to Giancarlo, I know the argument will be made that the cooling within this test device is such that the desired temperature to operate a hot cat could not be reached. Would it be feasible to adapt the method to accommodate at least a part of the hot cat’s operating range as claimed by the current report? For example, the temperature ( I forget what it was) at which the reaction “takes off”? Would you maybe use a different coolant such as silicon oil? Would it be necessary to go as far as the use of liquid metal cooling? That would be demanding but certainly doable– it’s done all the time in fission reactor research and some rocketry and space programs.

I would maybe suggest that you also make a run in which you deliberately misplace the output temperature sensor too close to the heater so that you can simulate what, very likely, Rossi/Levi did in February 2011. Well, maybe the audience is too small to make it worth your while. But I bet you can make that heater look like 4kW instead of 2kW with a simple trick like that.

Congratulations, Giancarlo. Good work. Can you name the institution to which you belong?

Here is the English translation (if the link works) via Google– it does quite a good job:

“Valat and Greenyer are so confident about their discovery that they discussed it on YouTube. ”
*
Wow! Now that is impressive! It’s so much more convincing than a publication in a main line peer reviewed journal!

The key to this preparation process involves developing the most LENR active surface on that wire. This surface includes a multi level pitting and spiking that has a hierarchy of layered pits and spikes from large as a base, to very small at the outermost surface; like moon cratering.

I would use Mizuno’s arcing process to surface treat a nickel wire. To produce the 5 micron diameter pits, I would start the arcing process with a high current high voltage arc. Just experiment with the current in the arc to get the pit size right at 5 microns more or less for a 400C operating temperature wire. Then decrease the current of the arc in stages to add finer and finer pits and spikes until you get a surface feature that is only a few nanometers in size.

In my opinion, electric arc surface treatment is cleaner to keep the nickel wire pure. Acid etching as used by Celani leaves hard to get out sulfur inside the roughened surface features of the nickel wire.

5 micron base features are resonate at operating temperatures of 400C, 2 micron base surface features are resonant at operating temperatures of 1000C.

My understanding from MFMP is that they have not achieved positive results from Celani wires good enough for them to want replication. I’m sure that once they have results they think are bullet-proof and mean something they will be very glad to have replication!

Page 28 and after show how resistance of his nickel wire decreased as the temperature increased after hydrogen loading.

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project may have discovered the “smoking gun” of low energy nuclear reaction (LENR). The project’s blog is claiming that French scientist Jean-Paul Biberian independently replicated and confirmed one of its low energy nuclear reactions with less than 24 hours of work.

Two project researchers Mathieu Valat and Bob Greenyer were able to detect gamma pulses every time they filled a Celani Cell with deuterium and switched it on. Valat and Greenyer are so confident about their discovery that they discussed it on YouTube. They believe this is evidence of LENR, when Jean-Paul Biberian duplicated this experiment he was able to get a similar result.

You too can duplicate this experiment instead of endlessly wining about unscientific behavior.

@Mats: I would be careful to use the term “pseudoskeptic”, or “pathosceptic”. I have only ever seen these used in relation to LENR and free energy discussions, where proponents use them to justify ignoring critique to their theories and experimental data. Real science is about putting forward well describe repeatable derivations and experiments, and about answering critique, not about appealing to peoples good faith.

It was not too long ago as marked by the painfully slow march of science that Steven Chu won himself a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for his ground breaking research at Bell Labs in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light. His fame in this supreme accomplishment afforded him the privilege to serve as the 12th United States Secretary of Energy from 2009 to 2013. This Chu experiment produced a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC): a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. But these days progress in science is moving so very fast that science cannot keep track of all the advances it is making by the hour.

There is huge resistance from the scientific community being deluded in a religious fervor that a BEC is a state of matter that can only exist at extreme temperatures very near absolute zero. However what is little known among the rank and file among science is that polariton condensates have been experimentally demonstrated to persist at room temperatures as recent quantum nanoplasmonic experiments have shown. Unlike atoms, polaritons are malleable forms of the Electromagnetic force shaped and combined as a composite waveform of infrared photons and electrons involved in dipole motion.

A great scientific breakthrough was demonstrated in the latest third party test of Rossi’s E-Cat. A polariton BEC was established for days at 1400C protecting the structure of the reactor from meltdown.

This demonstration alone is worth a Nobel Prize. And yet science is ignoring this technical breakthrough. When science ignores this experimental feat, they are shooting themselves in the foot; they are also tossing away a paradigm changing demonstration of quantum mechanics, and worst of all they are showing how smart people can be the worst kinds of fools.

In this new form of light/matter environment, a new quantum mechanical environment is created in which radiation is evenly distributed throughout the entire structure of the Rossi reactor. With science failing to pick up the ball here, it is now up to the engineers to make proper use of this new wonder.

When the full extent of this dereliction of duty by the scientific community is finally realized by ordinary people, and you can be assured that it will be, there will be hell to pay among those who should have known better.

If what you say is true – and it seem to me like a wild flight of fancy – then it can easily be part-validated by the testers who will therefore have evidence of the active reactor heater resistance dropping dramatically as temperature goes up.

So you, like us, would I guess be keen for this matter to be resolved.

The properties and behavior of Surface plasmon polaritons(SPP) will vary as a function of their lifetimes. In LENR, a short lived SPP performs a different job than its longer lived brothers. The shortest lived SPP will only exist on a femtosecond time scale. Metals support short lived SPPs that exert forces on electrons causing an SPP-enhanced photon drag effect (PDE). A pronounced drag effect begins to take hold under the conditions of strong nanoplasmonic confinement, when the SPP localization radius is less than the skin depth (∼ 25 nm). This effect has not been widely studied, exploited theoretically or experimentally in nanoplasmonics.

In more detail. a giant surface plasmon induced drag effect (SPIDEr) in metal nanowires acts very fast, with response on the femtosecond time scale. Recent research shows that the ultra short, nanolocalized SPP pulses exert great forces on electrons in thin nanowires, inducing giant THz electromotive force (emf) along the SPP propagation direction.

In thin (∼ 5 nm radius) nanowires this emf can reach ∼ 10 V, with nanolocalized THz fields as high as ∼ 1 MV/cm. Such THz fields have previously been generated in the far zone, where they produce non-perturbative effects, but not on the nanoscale.

In contrast, the plasmonic metal based naochannels can serve as nanolocalized sources of high THz emf fields exerting accelerating force on electrons of its associated dipole.

In LENR, one of the functions that SPP perform is to transfer the energy carried by heat (IR) photons and inject that heat energy into the dipoles vibrations that form the matter based component of the SPP.

There exists a energy concentration mechanism that feeds power into energetic electrons when these electrons are accelerated by the linear momentum contained in the IR photons that comprise the SPP.

A SPP that dies quickly, produces more EMF force than one that exists for a long time and then dies slowly. There is an analogy to the dynamics of sparks. This SPP behavior seems to correspond to the proportional amplification of instantaneous power produced by a very short lived spark. A spark that dies off quickly must shed all its power in a very short time frame. This lends itself to intense power amplification. The shorter lived the spark, the higher the instantaneous power that the spark produces when it dies. The following seems to be the relationship involves with this SPP ultra short collapse mechanism.

EMF power is proportional for any given SPP power level to nanoplasmonic confinement. Nanoplasmonic confinement is related to the time that the SPP exists. A short lived SPP has a large and relatively leak proof nanoplasmonic confinement. Like a wakefield accelerator, a rapidly collapsing SPP will push electrons at high force levels proportional to its rate of its collapse. The linear momentum of the SPP is transferred to its associated electron with a great force giving the electron a high level gain of instantaneous power.

A very small nanoparticle will produce a very thin contact plasma channel when it touches another nanoparticle during nanoparticles arrogation. This thin nanochannel results in higher and tighter nanoplasmonic confinement and a shorter SPP lifetime.

When two nanoparticles come together, the size of their mutual point of contact defines their EMF instantaneous power amplification factor.

Like nanowire, the EMF force produced by the SPP is inversely proportional to the cube of the diameter of its connective plasma channel. Specifically, a very thin sub-nanometer sized plasma channel means a huge EMF power amplification factor.

A small nanoparticle will produce a smaller point of contact and a proportionally larger EMF power application factor.

In this way, the energy in the heat photons applied to the system is transferred to the dipoles as a huge increase in electron power, specially, heavy high frequency electrons.

Now this heavy electron has the ability to pair up with a EMF photon of even a higher frequency when there energy levels are equal. In a short time, the SPP system will gradually climb an acceding frequency ladder to EMF levels in the extreme ultra violet (XUV) range.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The properties and behavior of the Surface plasmon polaritons(SPP) varies as a function of its lifetime. A short lived SPP performs a different job than its longer lived brothers. A short lived SPP will only exists on a femtosecond time scale. Metals support SPPs that exert forces on electrons causing an SPP-enhanced photon drag effect (PDE). A pronounced drag effect begins to take hold under the conditions of strong nanoplasmonic confinement, when the SPP localization radius is less than the skin depth (∼ 25 nm), has not been studied or exploited theoretically or experimentally in nanoplasmonics.

A giant surface plasmon induced drag effect (SPIDEr) in metal nanowires, which is very fast, with response on the femtosecond time scale. Recent research shows that the ultra short, nanolocalized SPP pulses exert great forces on electrons in thin nanowires, inducing giant THz electromotive force (emf) along the SPP propagation direction.

In thin (∼ 5 nm radius) nanowires this emf can reach ∼ 10 V, with nanolocalized THz fields as high as ∼ 1 MV/cm. Such THz field have previously been generated in the far zone, where they produce non-perturbative effects, but not on the nanoscale.

In contrast, the plasmonic metal nanowires can serve as nanolocalized sources of high THz emf fields exerting accelerating force on electrons of its associated dipole.

In LENR, one of the functions that Surface plasmon polaritons(SPP) perform is to transfer the energy carried by heat (IR) photons and inject that heat energy into the dipoles vibrations that form the matter based component of the SPP.

There exists a energy concentration mechanism that feeds power into energetic electrons when these electrons are accelerated by the linear momentum contained in the IR photons that comprise the SPP.

A SPP that dies quickly, produces more EMF force than one that exists for a long time and then dies slowly. There is an analogy to the dynamics of sparks. This SPP behavior seems to correspond to the proportional amplification of instantaneous power produced by a very short lived sparks. A spark that dies off quickly must shed all its power in a very short time frame. This lends itself to intense power amplification. The shorter lived the spark, the higher the instantaneous power that the spark produces when it dies. The following seems to be the relationship involves with this SPP ultra short collapse mechanism.

EMF power is proportional for any given SPP power level to nanoplasmonic confinement. Nanoplasmonic confinement is related to the time that the SPP exists. A short lived SPP has a large and relatively leak proof nanoplasmonic confinement. Like a wakefield accelerator, a rapidly collapsing SPP will push electrons at high force levels proportional to its rate of collapse. The linear momentum of the SPP is transferred to the electrons with a great force giving the electron a high level of instantaneous power.

A very small the nanoparticle and it associated contact plasma channel that the SPP forms with another touching nanoparticle, the higher the nanoplasmonic confinement and the shorter is that SPP lifetime.

The EMF force produced by the SPP is inversely proportional to the cube of the diameter of the plasma channel. That is to say, a tiny sub-nanometer channel means a huge EMF power amplification factor.

When two nanoparticles touch, the size of their point of contact defines their EMF instantaneous power amplification factor.

The EMF force produced by the SPP is inversely proportional to the cube of the diameter of the plasma channel. That is to say, a tiny channel means a huge EMF amplification factor applied to the electron in the dipole at that point of contact.

A small nanoparticle will produce a smaller point of contact and a proportionally larger EMF force application factor.

In this way, the energy in the heat applied to the system is transferred to the dipoles as a huge increase in electron power.

Now this electron has the ability to pair up with a EMF photon of even a higher frequency. In a short time, the SPP system will gradually clime an acceding frequency ladder to EMF levels in the extreme ultra violet (XUV) range.

My primary postulate regrading LENR causation theory is that LENR is based on electrodynamics. Another important concept is that all types of LENR phenomena in their various guises are based on the same ultimate cause.

I came to this belief when I first studied the work of Ken Shoulders who showed that transmutation will invariably occur is metals impacted with electric sparks. The EMF based transmutation process is also seen in the proton 21 experiments numbering in the thousands where a high energy arc transmutes tiny copper ball into a verity of other elements. The same type of transmutation pattern is seen is experiments involving exploding metal foils in liquid under the action of a high energy spark.

All instances in LENR experimentation involve electric currents or some other like manifestation of EMF. In the Ni/H reactor, the EMF comes from plasmons. Plasmons are sheets of electrons, that are confined to the surface of transition metals. These electrons come from atomic dipole surface vibrations caused by heat, Sharp tiny sub-wavelength sharp points and steep linear ridges amplify and localize these electron currents in a process called Anderson localization. Such interference of electron flow been observed by localization of a Bose–Einstein condensate in a 1D disordered optical potential (Billy et al., 2008; Roati et al., 2008).

But the waveforms of electrons and light can be strongly coupled together when their energy are equal. Electrons and photons bind together into a common waveform called a polariton. In a polariton, electrons screen the photons so that photons are also captured at the surface of metal. By the way, nickel is a perfect reflector of infrared photons. So infrared light is captured between a sheet of electrons and a perfect reflector. This lack of dispersion will produce a EMF particle that is a combination of infrared light and electrons. This particles is called a surface plasmon polariton (SPP). The waveform of an SPP is part light and part electron.

This quasi-particle particle is unusual in that its non resonant EMF waveform has very little mass. Because it is a boson, it can pack together in extreme densities. Because SPPs can couple strongly with each other, they can easily form a Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC). The Rules of BEC formation say that the maximum temperature that a BEC can exist is a function of both the mass of the boson and the density of its population.

The proof of this statement about the possibility that a BEC can form at high temperatures is witnessed in the recent development of the polariton laser that runs at room temperature.

If you need documentation of these assertions listed above, I will be happy to provide them.

Indeed, Rossi’s e-cat seems to be a true miracle. If not, and if it is true, we would like to learn, to understand the new physics. However, Andrea Rossi so far has refused to disclose the secrets that make the cat work. For what reason?

“Thank you for your opinion, but, as I already answered many times to this kind of comments, to give away for free the IP would stop the real investments necessary to develope this technology.”

Mats, is this also your opinion? If not, is there something we can do to make Rossi understand that he is mistaking, that, on the contrary, knowledge of his IP would speed up the development of his invention. It might even explains the result fo the present test.

“Also, I’d like to be sure they are checking the line powers in the logs, rather than the line currents. the line currents will always be positive, revered clamp or no..”

@ Thomas Clarke
This was also my concern and my question regarding the method of verification used.

Line current, like any RMS value, is “for definition” absolutely positive (it cannot be negative value being: the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares…) even if PCE-830 Current clamp was inverted.

I’d like to be sure the testers understand the anomaly in the report that has many people concerned.

The power and current measurements in the report don’t agree unless the heater is some material we think pretty well impossible, and not what was stated.

They can confirm that the report is correct, or find an error, simply by looking at the same power and current measurements during the active test warm-up phase. If they show variable resistance all is explained. If they show constant resistance then something is clearly very different between the dummy and active tests.

Checking whether clamps have been inverted is a short-cut. If they discover this it exactly explains the issue. If they don’t then an explanation is still needed.

Also, I’d like to be sure they are checking the line powers in the logs, rather than the line currents. the line currents will always be positive, revered clamp or no, but the line powers will show reversal because one will be negative.

@Franco Morici
They checked photos and log files and assured that no clamps were inverted, presumably seeing the clamps in the photos and being able to conclude from log files also that they were not inverted.

I dont know if you remember of me, anyway I write here with my real name and surname.

What you reply to DickeFix is not clear to me.
You wrote:

“DickeFix (I wonder why so many people here want to be anonymous),
Two main issues have been raised:
1. The measured absorbed energy in the effective run is about a third of what you would expect when looking at the Joule heating in the copper wires, as calculated from the measured current.
2. If one clamp is inverted on both power analyzers, they would measure a third of the effective power but still show the correct current value (but negative).
…
No 2. I have discussed this with the researchers and they tell me that they have excluded this hypothesis, looking at log files and photos.
Then there’s also the issue with the statement regarding Kirchoff’s law, but this has no significant impact on the final result.”

—

I am not sure to have understood well the question and in particular the researchers’ reply.

a) You talked with them about the possibility that an inverted Current clamp could reduce the power value (measured by PCE-830) to 1/3 of the effective one and that in that case the Current (the value I in Ampere) should show exactly same value but the Current assumes negative values.
Right?

b) As reply, the researchers said that they discussed and checked their log file and photo and they can assure that no negative “I” (the Current) values were recorded by PCE-830, therefore the measured power by PCE-830 cannot be in any way underestimated.
Right?

Hi Mats, I am grateful for that you published my questions and replied to them. I apologize for not using my real name here on your blog. I have a policy to remain anonymous on internet since I believe in the Epicurus´ maxim “Live unknown”. However, if you or anyone else want to know me in person, you are welcome to contact me via my hotmail address: dickefix@hotmail.com.

I am surprised to hear that the researchers have already excluded the reverse clamp hypothesis since that hypothesis was consistent with all the measurement values in the report; the current, the input power and the measured temperature without assuming LENR or other natural miracles.

I don´t rule out that excess heat to LENR may exist and I think it is a scientific obligation to investigate it. It is true that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs but it is also true that one should not give up research that potentially can have an immense impact on society as long as there is a miniscule possibility of success.

However, the main problem with the present report is that, even if LENR exists, it would only explain the excess heat and neither the electrical measurement results, nor the remarkable fuel/ash contents. Hence, to trust the report fully, one has to believe in not one miracle (LENR) but in three different miracles. There are also additional mysteries that decrease the credibility of the results; the different composition of the ash compared with previous test, Andrea Rossi´s conflicting statements about enriched Ni62 in the _fuel_ and his surprising confession recently that he manipulated earlier test samples.

I am confident that the independent swedish researchers have done their best to reveal the truth. Since I also trust their intelligence and scientific knowledge, I am equally confident that they understand the seriousness of above objections. I just hope that they have enough scientific integrity and lack of prestige to objectively reevaluate both their measurement results and the overall conclusion of the paper. Complete silence may feel like a comfortable solution at the moment but it is reprehensible in the long run since the truth will finally be revealed anyway.

”Mats,
I prefer to stay anonymous.
You can recognize me by mean of my email adresses, and even ban me.
Giancarlo is not anonimous, but I suppose he can understand the choice of the anonimous club.
Ask him”.

I have an answer for this.

Why is there that there are some anonymous here around and in general in the web? One could think only those who have something to hide would like to be kept their faces to appear in web – might it be they are all criminals or might it be they fear something, could it be the latter?

For example, if you should be convinced you‘re speaking of a fraud (non interesting, by now, which one), you could also think there might be some (even more than one, say two or three) dangerous people involved, might be even at least one who already spent time in prison – who know which kind of friends he could have collected in those days?

And if the business is calculated in millions of euros, one could expect there could be someone (few, might be only one or even two) that could be really upset if you go around telling everyone and there that it is a fraud – you could expect even good people get upset if they believe it is all fine and you say that is not, that is normal.

But when you should believe someone is cheating, you might also think (oh, of course, you would be mistaking!) exposing the cheat could end up in some kind of menace – like, say, tell that you and your family might have some matters or a visit from someone who would kick you badly and then keep your son for a month, or even trying to track and expose you to the world of believers – if there are people that could believe the E Cat is the Millennium Discovery, it is enough a single mad among those that would really believe that you are the villain from the Dark side of the Strong Force that prevents the E Cat to fly in the world – and if your address is known might be you (or a son?) could have an accident while crossing a road. Why not?

(By the way, we perfectly know the son of one whose name is known have had a real accident and that was only an accident and nothing else)

Why, if you should believe you are exposing a fraud, could not it be dangerous? Because you do believe the goods will always win? Because of nothing bad is happened yet?

Well, I am pretty sure the E Cat is a millionaire joke AND I’ll keep the anonymous card, as I do believe “goods” win seldom in the real world without losses. Quite sure I am wrong, but I do not dare to check on this.

@Giancarlo
Of course. That’s why I said “as implausible as the reactions are”.

I am highly skeptical that any nuclear reactions took place in those samples. But if no specific reaction is claimed, one can’t say the ash is heavier than the fuel, without knowing how the abundance of possible constituents like hydrogen changed.

Regardless of the particular reaction steps, just considering the raw materials hydrogen and Ni, it could represent a decrease in mass, and therefore an exothermic process:

4p +4e +58Ni => 62Ni + 35 MeV

Obviously steps like p + e + 58Ni => 59Ni or p + 58Ni => 59Ni + e+ without radiation are silly to contemplate, but then silliness does not seem to be a barrier for many people to accept the claims. (By the way, these are the sorts of reactions Rossi and Focardi claimed in their paper on JoNP, in 2010, I think.)

I’m just saying that lack of mass is not the problem with these claims. The nucleons to build up the 62Ni have to come from somewhere, and even if they come from Li, the reaction is exothermic. The problem is the lack of intermediates and the lack of radiation and too little energy. I don’t think they’re claiming to be creating nucleons out of nothing.

Besides, the whole exercise is pointless. If you want to control the temperature the best and by far the most flexible way is to do it with a standard temperature controller. And it does not matter however you try regulating the temperature. The nuclear reactons are sleeping. And that’s what I will do now. Good night!

Its common knowledge that reduced resistance and even superconductivity is seen as a surface effect in one and two dimensional insulators. There is nothing extraordinary about this type of current flow. This type of flow even occurs at extreme temperatures accompanied by boson condensation. What is extraordinary for one person is everyday happenstance for another. There are 140 million research papers in circulation, many are important to understand. Such understanding will greatly reduce the amazement that one sees in experimentation. These days, there is seldom anything new or extraordinary under the sun. There is need for more reading and less talking.

BTW, Mats, best as I can determine, the upper temperature limit for the existence of semiconductors is 700 degrees C and that is a very rare, special and extremely expensive device. None comes close to the supposed 1400 degree operating temperature of the hot cat. It is extremely improbable if not impossible that Rossi achieved his results with a heater incorporating semiconductors.

“You also have opinions on scientific honesty. Fine, have your opinions. We all have.”
*
Well, critique of Rossi begins with his Petroldragon criminal history and the way he deceived DOD/CERL out of millions for junk parts he bought in San Diego. That’s fact. Or maybe you know why tubes from Rossi’s toxic waste tanks led to irrigation channels (reported widely in Italy in major news sources) and why DOD/CERL was so embarrassed that they removed the report of their project with Rossi from the internet.
*
As for scientific honesty, I don’t think many people believe that the Swedish scientists and you are dishonest. I won’t discuss Levi at your request. The issue with you and the scientists is not dishonesty but scientific negligence. There has never been one valid explanation of the simple fact that not a single Rossi publicized test has had any calibration up until the last two and those were done improperly, the last one not covering the range of temperatures included in an actual run. That is simply bad science. It leave one wide open to deception. Given Rossi’s past, one should be extra careful to rule out deception and that was never done.

@Giancarlo
“we have an apparatus that creates at the same time both energy and mass (the ashes are heavier than the fuel)”

While I am in full agreement with nearly everything you argue on this issue, I am confused by this statement. The isotope analyses did not measure the hydrogen abundance in either sample. The ash (mostly 62Ni) is lower in mass than the the mass of the lighter Ni isotopes plus the necessary protons and electrons needed to produce 62Ni.

As implausible as these reactions are, the energy problem is the opposite of what you say. Producing 62Ni from 58Ni by a series of proton captures (and positron emissions) or equivalently electron captures by protons and neutron captures by nickel releases 35 MeV per nucleus, based on the mass defects. And that amounts to far more energy than they claim (by a factor of 10 if one gram of fuel is consumed). And yet they measure no escaped radiation. I think the room must have been filled with a lot of Qi

Mats
I must correct: Truzzi quoted a statement by Carl Sagan ( I believe).
« And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof. (This statement is often abbreviated to “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”) »
(Editorial in The Zetetic (Vol. 1, No.1, Fall/Winter 1976, p 4)

Mats,
I prefer to stay anonymous.
You can recognize me by mean of my email adresses, and even ban me.
Giancarlo is not anonimous, but I suppose he can understand the choice of the anonimous club.
Ask him.

Back to our dialogue, I try to be brief and clear without hurting (I try…..)

If you like to quote Truzzi, here is another one:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences” (Truzzi, once again).

We only have extraordinary claims since 5 years ago.
Evidences are a bunch of contradictions or lies, since 2011.

I am BTW not anonymous. I think your comments on the resistance issue are disingenuous. By probabilities here I (and others) mean “that is very very unlikely”. In science nothing is absolutely impossible – not even that the earth will stop spinning tomorrow. But when measurements in a test require very highly unlikely properties of some unknown material you double-check the measurements.

The authors claim this is a scientific report and have published it in a University repository. They therefore would expect comment, and would by normal scientific standards be expected to reply to it.

There are many comments that would be made by a peer reviewer on this report. But there is only one comment which indicates a serious and correctable error that invalidates the test completely until it is resolved. That is the discrepancy between current and power measurements.

In this situation, although no-one is under any obligation to defend their work. The authors have stated they have data (the stored test data) which can resolve this criticism and confirm or deny the hypothesis that the heating element has a variable resistance. Thus far they have to my knowledge not released any further comment based on this data.

That scientifically, is most extraordinary, and not expected. Surely, if it confirmed the hypothesis, they would want to do so. If it showed a constant resistance heating element they would be scientifically dishonest not to state this clarification.

We (as we, the human species) know for a fact that if you enclose a charge of elements or chemical compounds in a container and subject the container to increasing temperatures you can observe various chemical reactions in the charge. If you increase the temperature enough the container will burst or melt or react with air or with the charge. The heating will not initiate any nuclear processes in the charge.

If you during heating send low energy photons from a pulsating electric current into the charge it will make no difference. These photons will be really feeble. A 1 MHz oscillation emits photons with energy 4E-9 eV. Chemical reactions happen at eV levels. Nuclear reactions? Forget it.

Ipso facto the E-Cat really is an impossible invention. You may call this pseudoskepticism. I prefer to call it reality based E-Cat denial.

“or presents counter-claims based on plausibility rather than on empirical evidence”

Matter is that those empirical evidences are all in the hands of Rossi’s team, who made the claims and are not going to show those evidences, not even the logs. To say “be patient” is like saying we should not ask for a clear conduct. To ask us to keep on the investigations while evidences are unreachable is simply joking – or you must really believe we are all gullible.

Do you think you are speaking with silly persons, Mats? Evidences, please. We have waited for more than a couple of week, we waited quite 5 years and you’re still here telling us “as you cannot say it is false, you should accept it as true”. That’s a poor trick. If I cannot say it is true or false, it is not the Millennium Discovery, it is only an urban legend. And to wait is to help those who eat on urban legends, not those who should seek discovery and science

@the anonymous club (and Giancarlo)
What I’m pointing out is that there are possible explanations to the issues you raise, and that these indications therefore are not proof but precisely, indications of error.
Thus we don’t know.
In that situation, a skeptic continues to investigate, without preconceptions.
You then talk about probabilities for this and that. Probabilities belong to statistics and require a large amount of cases, which we don’t have here. You mix up probabilities with opinions.
You can say that there is “much that indicates” etc. Fine. That’s an opinion.
You also have opinions on scientific honesty. Fine, have your opinions. We all have.
What we can do as skeptics is continue investigating and put our opinions aside. And since you don’t have an object to do research on, what you can do is have patience.
You cannot oblige other researchers to do anything.
So — please, have your opinions and have patience.
Or, if you prefer, don’t have patience. In any case, it won’t change anything.

From my book:
“Truzzi characterized a pseudoskeptic as one who denies phenomena or claims when there is doubt, who discredits rather than investigates, who criticizes scientific claims without presenting supporting proof for the criticism, or presents counter-claims based on plausibility rather than on empirical evidence.”

@Mats,
you wrote: “It doesn’t have to be commercially available inconel. We know little about the material. It has not been analyzed.” (1)
I only know that the report stated “incomel”, and that incomel is a material with constant behaviour with temperature, and a slight INCREASING of resistivity at the increasing of temperature. This is what incomel is for.
If electrical resistivity DECREASES by a ratio of three times at the increasing of temperature, simply, it’s not incomel. So why write “incomel”?

The statement “Measurements performed during the dummy run with the PCE and ammeter clamps allowed us to measure an average current, for each of the three C1 cables, of I1 = 19.7A, and, for each C2 cable, a current of I1 / 2 = I2 = 9.85 A.” sounds strange, in sinusoidal or in periodical conditions.

But you would never say:””It doesn’t have to be commercially available Kirchhoff’s law. We know little about Kirchhoff’s law. It has not been analyzed.”

I think that when discussing the TRP2 we are only wasting our time. I tried a dialog with the speakerperson but it was impossible to get precise answers to precise questions. The discussion was immediately shifted to questions like «Who are you and why are you trying to find errors?», or «We are academics and are not willing to discuss questions on the blogosphere». This is very amusing when said of a report that was published exclusively on a blog and a University repository. As you can understand the dialog was terminated abruptely.
I’ve been a researcher for a large percentage of my life and still I act as a peer-reviewer: when I read in TPR2 Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor, I assume the resistors ARE MADE BY INCONEL. Otherwise it is deception and it is against the ethics of research. It is scientific misconduct. If someone tells me that the Inconel (a metal alloy built to be stable in temperature) has been doped by semiconductors to decrease its resistance by a factor of 3+ I simply think he’s kidding me or he’s completely mad. Please note that in his first furious comment (against Raman, that’s me) Rossi said that the resistance was increasing with temperature. That means to have clear ideas indeed. What is a decreasing resistance needed for?

When we will finish with input power we will have time enough to discuss about the nuclear behaviour: we have an apparatus that creates at the same time both energy and mass (the ashes are heavier than the fuel): I think Mr. Einstein will be very happy of it.
So, friends, for the time being consider the TPR2 for what it is: a marketing brochure. We’ll consider it a scientific paper immediately after it is published on Nature, as it deserves.

“The manaul of PCE-830 only describes logging of power and harmonics. Nothing is said about currents, so most probably it is not possible to log them”
Might be one of those guys that are playing with a pce-830 could tell what we could expect from these logs. As far as we know, data there should at least be able to rule out major issues without revealing secrets under NDA

“We know little about the material. It has not been analyzed”
This is Big Science, man, you are indeed at the TOP of it

“Saying “we don’t know” is ignoring a lot of well understood material science”

It is not simply “ignoring”, it is as to say that if you do not check, you can believe.

Once again: why should the world believe when a check could be easy?
We are not asking to open the E Cat or to analyze Catalyst, we are saying to publish logs of pce 830 measurements.
Or are you trying to say magic formula is written in those logs?

“A short statement showing the data that proves that would clear up the controversy and make the results much stronger”
Exactly the point: claims without any evidence are worth nothing.
It is time to give up with the “I am a truth teller, thus you must believe” stuff: show data, not calculation on supposedly alien materials

I’ve just noticed an inconsistency. You say the researchers discussed the unusual resistivity characteristics of the heater? In that case they must have definite measurements showing this, and also they would know it was surprising. how could they not put the measurements into the report.

Here is what they should have done (and could still do):

(1) look at the total input power (Pin) and sum of square of RMS line currents measurements (Itot^2)from data during the warm-up phase in the ative test. At the start of this the power in was zero. Therefore the continuous (0.5s) samples over this period must span the 500C temperature of the dummy test as well as eventually the 1250C temperature. The heater resistance is exactly:
Rheater = Ptot / Itot^2

(2) Check whether there are, or are not, dramatic changes in Rheat.

No guesswork is needed. Either the the anomaly is proven justifies by resistance chnage, or there is a proven measurement error.

Dramatic reductions in resistivity are only possible for semiconductors, not metals. Inconel, known or unknown variant, is a set of alloys with metallic properties, made of metals. Saying “we don’t know” is ignoring a lot of well understood material science.

The problem with saying the wire is a semiconductor is that to get lower resistance with temperature you need a band-gap which is spanned by the energies available at higher temperatures, That relates the resistivity vs temp graph to the band-gap. SiC has a very high bandgap, but not nearly high enough for the purpose here, it is increasing resistivity from 500C up.

You have the “multiplication of miracles” problem. When your evidence for Rossi having a miracle itself depends on his inventing (for no apparent reason) another independent miracle you should reexamine your assumptions.

If I look at the many Rossi tests, it is seldom that hard data exist showing why they are right or wrong. There are mechanisms to generate the claimed results through error, but no certainty they apply. That is because the data collection from the tests has been pretty bad. That should not convince anyone that Rossi has the miracle he claims, but it does not prove he does not have it.

This latest test corrects that. There is no conceivable good reason for the scientists involved not resolving this anomaly with the data they say they have. If the reactor has a novel material with unheard-of resistance characteristics this can easily be determines from power vs current during the warmup phase. A short statement showing the data that proves that would clear up the controversy and make the results much stronger.

As it stands the report is scientifically inconsistent. It requires a correction. Any fair-minded observer would see the lack of such correction, given reasonable time and the authors aware of the issue, as a very big red flag.

The report is in the public domain, and it is a matter of scientific honesty that when an anomaly is pointed out that can be resolved, the authors do this, or state why they cannot do it. Had they not collected data as thoroughly as they did we would not have this question. The report would be yet another unconvincing attempt to validate something that if real would be very easy to validate.

It is clear to me, from the comments in the report, that the authors share my concern for careful validation. Therefore the lack of response here (which could be done in just one hour looking at stored power vs current data during active test warm-up) is most surprising.

hallo Mats,
About issue 1, you wrote:
“No 1 has had a possible explanation in a material in the heating coils with a resistivity that decreases by a factor three in the temperature interval between the dummy run and the effective run, while being constant or linear in the temperature interval of the effective run. Such materials exist, and as far as I know, the material in the coils was discussed in the group of the researchers before this issue was raised.”

According to the report, the material is a sort of “incomel”.
Here you can find lots of datas about the many kinds of incomel:

Resistivity of any kind of incomel is almost costant (slightly increasing) with temperature.
In particular, incomel 617 has a complete set of resistivity vs. temperature datas on a large range of temperatures, because I617 what optimised for constant resistivity. Other kinds of incomel are optimized for constant mechanical properties. It’s important to underline that in the present case there is no mechanical stress, so mechanical properties are not important.

Well, I gave you the answer so I might just as well provide the question as well:

“Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,

I know that I already have had more than my share of your time, but I need to bring up something that I did not mention in our earlier conversation.

When we discussed the measurement of the input power you referred to the two PCE-830 instruments. I am sure that they are good quality instruments, but they do have their limitations. And it would seem that these limits have been exceeded in the Lugano test.

Figure 5 in the report depicts the display of the PCE-830 that measured the power that was fed to the reactor. If you take a closer look at the display you can find no less than seven places where instead of values you can read “OL”. According to the manual for PCE-830 page 55 this means “Overload Indication”.

If this is the typical appearance of the PCE-830 display during the long term test, then how can we trust the data that was produced?

@Branzell: The thing is that either is that comment from Rossi wrong, or the statement in the report is false. This as they contradict each other, as the photo in the report is used to illustrate and document a measurement of the setup.

@Mats: Let me rephrase my statement. I am not aware of any material, even a semiconductor, that is usable as a heating wire material and at the same time exhibits the temperature dependent resistance that could explain the data reported.

And I was just curious if the authors had commented to you anything about the picture, which shows that a current clamp was reversed. This as you evidently have been in contact with them on the subject of the criticism of the report.

You do not have to worry about the OL indications in the Lugano report, Figure 5. This picture pertains to a procedure that every responsible scientist should do before starting an important test, here eloquently described by the inventor himself:

“Hi!
I asked to the Professors to explain this issue. I didn’t even notice it, also because I have respect for the Professors and am sure they know perfectly what they do. The Professors made the set up and also the photos.
They told me that the photo has been taken during the set up of the measuring system, before the beginning of the recording of the data. The reason for which this photo has been taken was to verify that the wave-form was readable by the instrumentation independently from its amplitude also in extreme conditions, up to the OL limit.
Warm Regards,
Andrea”

As is common with Rossi’s explanations, it raises more questions than it answers.

Nice, Mats. It is like if I ‘ve said that you should go back to square one of Science and scientific work, for you to go there and study what they mean. From the start. But I am not that ugly to tell, I really hope you go there on your own, without needing an invitation from my side…

Bad idea, Mats: “square one” is where Hyperion could have worked if one would have believed instead of check. Let skeptics check those logs and pictures. Or clearly say Professors (and also Rossi?) do not want

@Cimpy
I’m sorry. I believe you haven’t understood what a skeptic is.
To become convinced you have to make a long journey. We’re not there yet, and if you don’t even want to start travelling you won’t get anywhere. But others will. If they arrive one day, they can convince you then. Not before.
Try going back to square one.

1) About 1/3 resistance matter: it could be possible due to special material, but they are not going to try for a dummy at same temperature as run to show it has been the case

2)the ones who are supposed not to see or even suspect a reverse clamp matters said they looked at photos and logs and that is not the case. And they are not going to show those pictures and logs (at least they might do in the first revision of this doc that will soon appear. That is: asking you (us) again to believe on their good faith.

The third issue (Ni62) is a matter of miracle, thus it is not even worth an answer: we should believe at it as it is and never question anymore.

Having or not a hope or a good mood or faith, it is in any case difficult to see where facts or Science are in this story. Moreover, if you step for a moment in the non-denier but still skeptic’s point of view – that is, if you do not want to believe but you want to be convinced – you should admit the goal of convincing people who do not believe has not been reached : no skeptic would change mind on behalf of a speech from the team that is claimed to be thirdly but obviously is not (as pictures of that group in 2011 can show)

We do not want to believe, we do not want a tale from professors, we do not want them to look at logs and pictures for us more than we could accept Rossi extracting the ash from E Cat with two people as witnesses out of more than six attending that event in another room. This kind of answers clearly do not stands, especially after all the bugs (“indications of possible mistakes”, to be polite) found since the beginning of this story.

We want facts, not speech and good faith. It should be the time, by now. I do not want to hear again “if one could believe in those numbers [and transmutations], than reactor could have been real”

@maryyugo
You are wring about the calibration, even though it would have been better to have more calibration data.
The external thermocouple couldn’t be attached, if I remember right.
I don’t know if they had access to the readings from the interior thermocouple.

“No 1 has had a possible explanation in a material in the heating coils with a resistivity that decreases by a factor three in the temperature interval between the dummy run and the effective run, while being constant or linear in the temperature interval of the effective run.”
*
If there are such materials which behave as you describe, then they complete invalidate the so-called “dummy” run. A blank calibration using the electrical heater, which seeks to prove that you are properly accounting for output heat, is worthless unless you cover the entire operating range. This is particularly true if the heater resistance varies in some weird and unexpected fashion with the operating temperature. Anyway, what material behaves exactly as you suggest and will sustain a steady temperature of greater than 1400 degrees?

Did you ask the experimenters why they did not supply the temperature data from the thermocouple(s) which were directly affixed to the device? And whether there was an interior thermocouple as well? One would expect that Rossi would have some direct measure of interior temperature if he were to regulate the device. Was that info supplied to the experimenters and if not why not?

Hi DickeFix (I wonder why so many people here want to be anonymous),
Two main issues have been raised:
1. The measured absorbed energy in the effective run is about a third of what you would expect when looking at the Joule heating in the copper wires, as calculated from the measured current.
2. If one clamp is inverted on both power analyzers, they would measure a third of the effective power but still show the correct current value (but negative).
No 1 has had a possible explanation in a material in the heating coils with a resistivity that decreases by a factor three in the temperature interval between the dummy run and the effective run, while being constant or linear in the temperature interval of the effective run. Such materials exist, and as far as I know, the material in the coils was discussed in the group of the researchers before this issue was raised.
No 2. I have discussed this with the researchers and they tell me that they have excluded this hypothesis, looking at log files and photos.
Then there’s also the issue with the statement regarding Kirchoff’s law, but this has no significant impact on the final result.

If you are confident that the researchers have done their job with due diligence, you could probably trust them. Otherwise I cannot help you. Obviously I have no influence on what they choose to do or disclose. They say they will address some issues in an updated version, but I don’t now at what extent or when.
You will have to judge for yourself, as anyone else.

Yikes, Fibb! You fell for that one too? The stock price tells the whole story. Actually, if I am not mistaken, there is no listing any more for Eestor at all. Zenn Motors which apparently owns most of that turkey, went from $6.00 a share in 2008 to around $0.20 a share now. Stock symbol is ZNN.V

In the last nine months, the company’s losses were $1.8 million. They only have a working capital of $180K so you can see where THAT is going.

The story of Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat is indeed a fascinating one and it deserves to be investigated and told. I want to thank both you and the independent researchers for your important and courageous contribution to this controversial topic. I feel confident that you all have done this task with due diligence and an open mind paired with a healthy skepticism.

Unfortunately, the last test – which initially seemed positive – has now created more questions than answers. I am sure that you as a M.Sc. in Engineering Physics understand the important concerns that have been raised by Giancarlo and Andrea S. regarding the measured input power. Thrse inconcistencies indicate that the real COP of the E-Cat may be close to unity, i.e., no excess heat. In addition the isotope results showing natural Ni (and traces of several other metals) as fuel and almost pure Ni-62 in the ash without any radiation, are clear indications that something is seriously wrong.

The main objective of the test was to investigate if the E-Cat gave excess heat or not. This is an important task regardless of the result. The initial positive conclusion of the test is now spreading rapidly to the public:

However, the inconcistencies in the report indicate that the positive conclusion may have been premature and need to be revised. It is therefore imperative that the test group reevaluates the measured and recorded data and investigate if the conclusion really holds before the story spreads further and causes even more damage to the reputation of those involved. Hence, please try to push the researchers involved in the test to carry out this task. We all want to know if the excess heat of Rossis E-Cat is real or just an illusion.

There are definite similarities. Both Weir and Rossi have made bold claims. In both cases, we are still waiting to see if there is really something commercially viable. And as yet, neither has come close to proving that to skeptics. After much upheaval at EEStor, it looks like they now have an executable business plan. Zenn is not in control of EEStor. If you want to know what the business plan is currently see the their last 3 PRs here. http://web.tmxmoney.com/news.php?qm_symbol=ZNN

http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-industrial-heat-llc-lies-tests-ethics-research-misconduct/
.
Most of those who are followers and/or disciples of Rossi’s new religion “e-catholic” have no real experience in scientific/engineering testing and research. Here is a very good article for anyone who follows or believes in any free energy claims. This article takes a look at what constitutes evidence in science and engineering, and further describes what the scientific method is and how it operates. It gives many examples of various ethic codes including worldwide standards of ethics for scientific/engineering testing and research.

@Axil – iYour viees on LENR sound awfully like a new religion. Anyway, one thing we can know is that the current test report is very far from perfect.

@Mats – I hope you will agree that the data from the report contains a glaring inconsistency that the authors can easily resolve by looking at the data they have stated they have stored. In this circumstance it is difficult to think of any good reason why they would not do this. Surely the whole reason for storing this data is exactly to resolve issues such as has been raised?

I can imagine it would take a little while to check everything, but 5 weeks is looking like the sort of delay politicians apply to reports with unwelcome conclusions in the hope that by the time the they are released everyone will have forgotten the issue.

It is not defamatory to say that no scientist would willingly leave such an inconsistency in published work unresolved a moment longer than necessary.

Well, Mats, it’s your blog so I will avoid commenting on Levi here in the future. But I sure wish you’d interview him and ask him about the questions I have raised about long past experiments along with those raised by others about the current tests.

Got it, Mats, and again, I agree with you: those are indications, and nothing more than that.
I am not here to do any defamation, I am here to look at facts. I hope you could agree with me solid facts are what we missed in this story, and what everybody would love to see.
Facts like, as a simple example, logs from PCE-830 of recorded experiment from Lugano report. I am not sure they would settle last word on the story, but I am sure you too would like to have had them exposed as evidence of -if not fusion – at least a proper working device in those days instead of an usefulness over loaded picture of that machine. Hope you get my point is not defamation.

@Cimpy
These are not proof but indications and you know it. You are free to provide them and express your opinion. It’s healthy.
But if you get close to defamation I will block you from here.
I will have particularly little patience with people who don’t identify themselves.
I will now delete your last post, as well as Thomas’ post on Levi.

The professional practitioners of science today inspire a emergent secular theology. The major tenant of this theology is human insignificant. Led as innocent children before this doctrine, we have gotten to the point where we this belief can undermine not only our own existence, but also destroy all life on this planet. In common with all of our past theologies, this new secular theology imposes a doctrine of insignificance and shared joylessness in an attempt to keep us in our place. Scorn and ridicule awaits the backslidden unbeliever dispensed aplenty by the apologists of this new religion.

One of the sticking point that lodges deeply in the gullets of “real” science is that LENR is just too perfect to be believed. They are wrong. In point of fact, it is beyond too perfect, it is absolutely perfect. The corruption of the mind that is our legacy inherited from the mindless primitive from which we evolved rebels against the concept of such perfection. Such perfection cannot exist in this life. Such perfection can only exist and be truly enjoyed in the next. From the pride and prejudice born deep within that primordial dark place, mankind does not deserve to drink fully this sweet ambrosia of the immortals.

LENR goes way beyond a great way to produce energy, it is a doorway to a new science whose implications when fully appreciated and developed will lift mankind up to trod upon brave new worlds spread like dust before eternity. A door for humankind will open to savor the power and the prerogatives of the gods. When man is wise enough to step through this doorway past the impossible that LENR lays open into timeless and unending existence, mankind will spread like a rising tide throughout the universe.

This perfection of LENR is its own threat to its credibility and its science is here 1000 years before its proper time. What aborigines from the dawn of our past corruption would rightly understand the wonders of our present civilization without quaking with fear at the reality of such wonders? The science that LENR will reveal and the future that it portends it just too awesome to contemplate.

Carl Sagan explained the emotion behind our current science and cosmology when he wrote Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. Sagan played for high stakes in this attempt to “de-deify” our entire species. His beautiful, secular psalm dedicated to our demotion is unsurpassed. In Psalm 8, King David described us as only a little lower than the angels while in Pale Blue Dot, Sagan takes great pains to obliterate any sense of cosmic significance:

Sagan says of that picture taken from by a spacecraft from a viewpoint far out in space: “We succeeded in taking that picture and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you know, everyone you love, everyone you’ve ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines. Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”.

With the help of LENR, this claustrophobic view of human existence is about to change.

@maryyugo @Thomas
You can think what you want but stop publishing insinuating comments on anyone here if you don’t have proof.
Your comments on Levi are starting to look like defamation, which is not accepted here. Clear?

Are you not an Eestor enthusiast? For those who aren’t familiar with this company, they claimed to have the secret to making high capacity supercapacitors which would rival lithium batteries and could be used to power electric cars. Eestor consumed much time and money (millions) from investors and never produced anything whatever which supported ANY of their claims. I don’t follow it closely but last I looked, the company was near or in bankrupcy, the investors were about to lose everything and the web site forum was about to be shut down.

I guess you think these results are real. In that case you ought to be just as interested in the error in the report being corrected. Although this report is not independent most people would reckon that the scientists involved are more likely honest than not – and any honest scientist would want the report’s conclusions to be secure and free of error.

The published data contains an anomaly which is either provable error, Rossi has extraordinary materials science – a new, and considered impossible, high bandgap semiconductor heating coil – as well as extraordinary LENR, or, as seems overwhelmingly likely, a mismeasurement of energy by X3 which provides all of the claimed better than unity COP.

That is stronger positive evidence of what is wrong than the typical: “we think this is how he did it”.

Even more, the testers have stated categorically in their report that they have the data stored which will resolve this anomaly – they can easily check whether the heating coil resistance did change. They can easily check (from sign of line powers) whether clamps were reversed.

I view a lack of response from them on this issue as more provably culpable, as well as being just plain bad manners scientifically, than any previous actions.

After all, if there is an innocent explanation surely they would want to show this. If no such then they are implicitly covering up bad and possibly illegal practice not stating that the test showed COP=1.

Now that we see Rossi copied almost the entire Rossi/Levi/Elforsk report #1 into his new patent application now might be a good time to read again the article put together by Wright and Krivit called”: Report #5: Rossi’s Profitable Career in Science at newenergytimes

And to also read again what was written many times before the latest report came out, that was at the beginning of many articles on freeenergyscams, such as this one:

Andrea Rossi – E-Cat – Academic ‘Victim’ or Part of the Con? With Interview by Stephan Pomp

A brief message to the authors of any future report on any test of any e-cat by the crook Andrea Rossi:

**If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos, and in the paper there are claims lacking in provability by others, i.e. (requires the reader to “trust” the authors), your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.

**If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos, and in the paper there are outrageous claims of free energy, and the testing procedure did not eliminate all of the possible ways the demo or test might have been falsified, your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.

**If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos and claim the e-cat is, or even the possibility of the e-cat being, a cold fusion/LENR device, and you do not prove in your paper that some type of cold fusion/LENR did in fact take place, your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.

**If you put your name on a paper analyzing one of the e-cat tests or demos and a truly independent third party cannot perform their own test to verify the claims in your report, your paper is worthless to all but a scammer and in our opinion, you become an accomplice with Rossi and a partner in his scam.

Mats, maybe one of these days you will write a retraction of your support of the fraudster and scam artist Andrea Rossi. The most honest thing a man can do is admit when he is wrong.

Well. I would say it is, but I am not a native, and might never know how exactly language advanced – I am quite sure “shall” is not often used, nowadays, but I may be wrong.

So, if it is imperative, this is another useless request even for EPO. Useless if someone could believe truly patenting was the goal. Very useful, instead if one should think goal was keeping simple minds on the believing path…

here: EPO rule 83 (Article 83 Disclosure of the invention)states:“The European patent application shall disclose
the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and
complete for it to be carried out by a person
skilled in the art”

In the US, a patent application must state everything needed so that a properly skilled person can duplicate the experiment and get the same results. That includes any “secret sauce”, catalyst, pulse generators, and so on. Because that requirement is in no way met by the Lugano experiment, it can not support the patent application. Not in the US anyway. I am not acquainted with patent law in Europe.

@Giancarlo
I’m flattered that you believe I have any influence on what could be done in this way. The only advice I can give you is to contact Rossi and IH and propose a measurement.
BTW, the recently released patent application by Rossi and IH is considered by some to explain the real reason behind the Lugano experiment — to support the patent application.

@Mats
Just to inform you that we have performed a water flow calorimetry in conditions similar to the hot-cat high dissipation regime (2 kW). The precision is quite good (a few %) so that it would simplify much the hot-cat measurement. We are ready to help to measure the hot-cat as done with the Defkalion equipment. Unfortunately we have only the Italian version (that you understand very well) but google and many figures make a good job.

On further thought I don’t think it would explain the discrepancy between current and power in the two tests. Reducing measured current would also reduce measured power, which is calculated from current.

Good idea – that could work if the SCRs were phase controlled so that the peak current increases as the duty cycle increases. So that would be COP measured consistently >1 and potentially no-one realising that this error was happening.

They can only cope with currents up to 100 A, but this refers to a sinusodial current. It is the momentary value of the current that counts. If you are using a triac regulator you can have very high current peaks during short intervals and you can exceed the limit even though the instrument reads only 50 A.

So, to me it seems possible that the low power at the dummy test was measured fairly correctly, but for the long term test the measured power was too low with a factor of about 3 due to saturating current clamps. The non-linearity effect also explains why the calculated COP increased with increasing power.

“Maryyugo: If what you said is true, then why dont you report that to the Police? or why do they people who know that are not reporting that to the police? or report directly to Elforsk.”
*
Oh but I did report it directly to Elforsk. Specifically by email to Magnus Olofsson, the CEO. He replied immediately as follows:

“CC:Stefan Montin

Dear Mary,

Thanks for your clear advice. We appreciate any input that can useful in explaining reported results.

I do not know in your Country, but in mine, it is only up to those who lost money, not to everyone.

That is: those who invested if – not important by which means – they do not get something from investment. Which means that, as long as the machine can bring money, no one could really complain but in blogs.

I am not sure the investors will really lose money : you know, you could get a lot selling sneak oil, and you should be able to give enough interests to those who bet some money on you that they would really have nothing to complain at all.

Maryyugo: If what you said is true, then why dont you report that to the Police? or why do they people who know that are not reporting that to the police? or report directly to Elforsk. If you have proofs or somebody have real proofs (a person) this is something that can be punish. On the other hand, it is just only FUD. It is easy to create FUD and then don´t do anything. Comments and more often anonymous comments are very easy to do.

I do believe they are simply protecting an investment. Like B. L. Ackerman in 1899 – the Ni62 story is unbelievable, but to tell the truth, the whole E Cat story is really a tale for children (very *young* children)

Elforsk is absolutely gullible. Their article is complete nonsense. There is not and can not be a nuclear process which converts essentially ALL of the nickel in Rossi’s supposed fuel into Ni-62 as found in the ash. The OBVIOUS reason the Ni-62 is there is that Rossi bought it (someone on Vortex claims to know Rossi’s source and recent purchase of the isotope) and he put it there by sleight of hand when he provided the ash to the Swedish scientists. I don’t suppose Elforsk thought of that? It make a lot more sense than rewriting all of nuclear physics!

New tests of the inventor Andrea Rossi´s energy catalyzer show clear isotopic changes in the catalyzer fuel. The results thus indicate that nuclear reactions at low temperatures may be involved.
———————————————————————————————————————————–
A month-long test run on an energy catalyzer once more shows astounding results made public in a new report, written by researchers associated with the University of Uppsala, the Royal Institute of Technology and the University of Bologna. Clear isotopic changes indicate an energy excess which may be due to hitherto unknown nuclear reactions or other unknown causes.

– It shows that we can be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy, probably without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could in the future be very significant for the world energy supply, comments the CEO of Elforsk, Magnus Olofsson.

Elforsk has in recent years followed the development in the area generally called LENR, short for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Among other things, a summary of current knowledge about LENR has been compiled. Elforsk also contributed to funding of current and previous measurements.

UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR SWEDEN
If it is possible to safely produce and control the now indicated nuclear reactions we can probably be looking forward to a radical change in our energy systems. It can open up for decentralized energy production. Electricity and heat can then be produced with relatively simple components. Climate effective energy would be very cheap.

– In the current situation we do not know if all this is too amazing to be true. The measurement results indicate that a new way to extract nuclear energy may have been discovered. A small group of Swedish researchers is deeply engaged in trying to understand the underlying physics. Sweden thus has a unique chance to be involved in leading research and development in the LENR area, says Magnus Olofsson.

– However, more knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in order to try to establish the phenomenon and then explain how it works.

ENERGY CATALYZER FACTS
The central part of the reactor is narrow and two decimeters long. In the experiments, the reactor was at a temperature up to about 1400 degrees Celsius. A net of 1500 kWh heat energy was developed. The thermal energy was three to four times larger than the applied electrical energy. This was with about a gram of fuel consisting of hydrogen loaded nickel with additives in powder form.

You are not going to ask for logs, exactly as you did not ask for pictures or videos of TPR1, is not that true, Mats?

By the way, usually those who dare challenge Giancarlo on experiments do not last long. You sure you can? Should not be professors (and not you or Rossi) the ones who should answer some of these questions? And show evidences, of course. Or have you been there?…

@abbe
Right. And I said that I was not sure the value given for dissipation — “1,3 Watt per Amp per phase” — was valid for all waveforms. You argued about changing physics for dissipation in resistive loads, and I answered that the dissipation didn’t seem to be resistive since it didn’t scale with I^2. Ok?

@Mats: Which one? There are many. One interesting thing is the following:

“The Fusion Controller is to be powered by a second power source to feed the micro and the control electronics. Power supply is a single phase 240V/1.5A (phase + neutral) for a total of 360 W maximum as said before. The power supply input is different from the line input, were the power to be regulated enters the Fusion Controller (see Installation Manual). If you put a PCE upstream and a second one downstream you will not see this disappearing power due to the fact that the 360 W are passing on a different line. They say they saw: that is possible only if they derive the active phase (for instance L1) with a fork from the same Line Input to the power part of the controller and insert the PCE before the splitting point (towards the grid). Until this point no problem: they only made a wrong insertion of the power meter. But…
There is a but here: the Fusion Controller will dissipate some more power on the lines due to the junction dissipation in the SCRs. From the Operation Manual this dissipation scales with current and is equal to 1,3 Watt per Amp per phase. They say they had 40-50 Amp load currents, so that there is an additional loss of 220-275 W for the three phases. So the reading must show at least a 580 W difference that is quite dissimilar from 360 W. And, moreover, it is to be compared to the 900 W they say they delivered to the load during the test run. No mention in the report and this is strange enough.
Maybe, they didn’t fully catch what was meant regarding dissipation in the manual. So, they connected the upstream PCE in the right place; in this case they would have observed only the 220-275 W SCR dissipation: less than the dissipation they expected.”

This is followed up with:

“Concerning your observation we have two kind of losses: the consumption by the electronic devices in the controller (nominal 360 W) and a consumption that is proportional to the current through the semiconductors. I used the RMS current that is what we know from measurements. Using average current would have been better, but nobody now measures average currents: the difference (errror) for very small conduction angles is about 10%.
However, if I understand well English, they say they measured the 360 W; that is strange to me.”

Now I found your reply regarding this:
“One detail — I assume that the figure on dissipation as a function of current refers to a case with uninterrupted cycles. Given that the current flows only a small part of the cycle, this value would probably have to be calculated in a different way.”

But I fail to see the reason why this should be the case. There is no time dependence given to the loss.

Follwing this is tis exchange, where Giancarlo is speaking of resistive losses, and you now presumable of the losses of the switches. I think this is where my confusion started:

@Mats Lewan

To be more clear, imagine to have a full sine wave (single phase) delivering 1 A rms to the resistive load, The power will be 230 W (230 V rms x 1 A rms). Now insert a perfet diode and deliver current to the load half of the time: for simmetry reasons in the RMS integrals you get 115 V and 0,5 A so that the power is reduced to 25%. For shorter conduction angles it works same way.

@giancarlo, branzell
Of course you’re right about rms voltage. However, it doesn’t seem obvious that dissipation vs current has the same value with different wave forms. Still, this consideration should be made.

@Mats: Might be my mistake, but most of his posts relate to the resistive loss in the cables and heaters, as far as I see. There is an additional loss in the switches which is mentioned in one of his posts.

@Mats: I think they mainly have been discussing the losses in the cables going to the E-cat, and not the losses in the switches of the switch box. It is the data on the former that further indicates that one current clamp was reversed. The losses in the switches might explain the power consumption they saw for the switch box.

@Mats: The power dissipation in a resistor is only dependent on two things: Voltage and current: P=V*I. And the voltage over a resistor is V=I*R. Thus P=R*I*I. This is basic physics, and you should have it in some of your freshman textbooks from KTH.

@abbe
I’m not an expert neither on semiconductors nor on this device, but if the dissipation was purely resistive it should scale with the current squared, not just the current as Giancarlo told us. I therefore assumed that this dissipation depended on more complex mechanisms and it didn’t seem obvious that the value was valid for all waveforms.

I am shocked that below, you quote Hank Mills! He believes anything, including magnetic motors that make free energy and virtually any scam that comes along. By his own admission he is “not a scientist”. Wow. A gross understatement. He comes across as having less intelligence than the Deity gave a wooden duck.

As for the intelligence of those at IH who apparently gave Rossi millions of dollars without, as far as anyone knows, getting a proper independent test of his claims, it would have to be rated low. Maybe Darden is good at finances but he clearly sucks at science and scientific method. And there is nothing to suggest he knows how to choose consultants or testers. Vaughn is mainly interested in helping the Third World and in religion! You certainly can’t rely on him to be skeptical. So every evidence is in favor of IH being dumb about Rossi.

And it is hard to believe that IH knew that EVERY test Rossi has EVER allowed was deficient in a major area which was exactly where he would be able to cheat and deceive. I also wonder if they knew about the DOD Thermoelectric device debacle and the details of the Petroldragon fiasco, other than the distorted and self serving deceitful way Rossi presents it on his idiotic web site. Did they know about his phony PhD degree he bought from now defunct diploma mill, Kensington University?

One can only hope that, finally, they read the internet forums which detail all the issues and problems with the recent measurements. And, I might add, problems which could have been easily resolved had the Swedes taken the advice of those on the internet who advocated constraining and characterizing the entire power input to the experiment AHEAD of Rossi’s portion AND verifying the output measurement with a “dummy” run covering the entire range of temperature AND the exact experimental set up of the active run. Simple things to do. And they would have completely gutted the current debate about subtleties of emissivity and difficulties with three phase power measurements.

@Mats: If you by this comment:
“However, it doesn’t seem obvious that dissipation vs current has the same value with different wave forms.”
are addressing current going into an ideal resistive load, then you have to change a lot of physics for the dissipation not to be independent on the current waveform. In reality there will be frequency dependent effects due to inductances and capacitances, but these are small for the case we are discussing here.

I’d like to clarify that my intention (regarding TPR2) was always to put into evidence some discrepancies you meet when reading the report. I’m not saying, in general, the authors are wrong but only that from data presentented in the report we do not have any possibility to understand if the measurements were performed well. My impression is they weren’t, but I’ve no possibility to show it with 100% certainty. Said in other words, the report is in general not falsifiable, that is not good if you intend to publish it as they said several times.

For some details, instead, the author are wrong: in any conditions the current in C2 is less than half of the current in C1. Or, if I’ve well understood and they say they measured a difference of about 360 W between upstream and downstream PCE, the simply inserted the upstream meter on the wrong wires. A clarification would be needed.

If we go to the thermal data it is another story. How can you have more than 500°C of difference between the alumina core and the caps provided that alumina is a very good heat conductor at high temperature as well? This is easy to show with some classical heat transfer algebra.

@giancarlo, branzell
Of course you’re right about rms voltage. However, it doesn’t seem obvious that dissipation vs current has the same value with different wave forms. Still, this consideration should be made.

To be more clear, imagine to have a full sine wave (single phase) delivering 1 A rms to the resistive load, The power will be 230 W (230 V rms x 1 A rms). Now insert a perfet diode and deliver current to the load half of the time: for simmetry reasons in the RMS integrals you get 115 V and 0,5 A so that the power is reduced to 25%. For shorter conduction angles it works same way.

@Mats LewanA 40 A RMS current at 3X400 V would result in 48 kW, or am I wrong? I believe 40-50 A refers to top values in those short spikes.

Sorry, Mats, but you are wrong. The voltage as well will be delivered for a fraction of the period time so that when you evaluate the RMS value integral you get a much smaller figure. For example in the dummy you get about 15 V across the load (accepting the 10 A they say they measured). The calculated peak current is in the range of 200 A or more.

I hope to see much more details in TPR2 2.0; however, it was not professional to forward my mail to Rossi. Whoever did it.

@Giancarlo
A 40 A RMS current at 3X400 V would result in 48 kW, or am I wrong? I believe 40-50 A refers to top values in those short spikes.
Regarding peer review I suppose you refer to situations where you are asked to review some paper. In this case you are not. And given the quite particular situation in this controversial field I’m not surprised they don’t answer all questions immediately. They have said they will address questions and issues in an update of the paper. I don’t know when that is planned for.

The comment by Hank Mills is about the old stuff regarding the magical resistorsThe logical conclusion is that there is something unique about the resistors or their environment inside the E-Cat that allows for the increased current.

Why the hell the resistors should be so magic? They do not take part in the reaction that is confined inside a smaller tube. I can not think that nickel could tunnel through the walls due to quantum mechanics and then back.

The PCE 830 doesn’t beep for reversed clamps; it is a surebet.

Concerning your observation we have two kind of losses: the consumption by the electronic devices in the controller (nominal 360 W) and a consumption that is proportional to the current through the semiconductors. I used the RMS current that is what we know from measurements. Using average current would have been better, but nobody now measures average currents: the difference (errror) for very small conduction angles is about 10%.
However, if I understand well English, they say they measured the 360 W; that is strange to me.

However, they have the logs: they show the logs and all this neverending discussion stops immediately. In either direction.

PS I never got a reply by the authors (after one month); this is not very usual in the scientific community. I’ve been peer-reviewing a few hundred papers and asking details for many more and I never observed such unethical behavior. Maybe they simply don’t know what to reply: in case good luck to them.

@Giancarlo
Interesting. Several unknown aspects though. One detail — I assume that the figure on dissipation as a function of current refers to a case with uninterrupted cycles. Given that the current flows only a small part of the cycle, this value would probably have to be calculated in a different way.

There was an interesting post over on E-Catworld. Wondering what you make of it. Here is the text of the post, followed by the URL:

“In the new analysis of the report the following comment was made :

A possible mistake that would explain the discrepancy is that one of the current clamps was turned the wrong way during the long term test. The contribution from this clamp would then be subtracted from rather than added to the measured power.

This possible issue was reported earlier, but I think that the error was possible due to an incorrect interpretation of the analysis done to prove this point.

I did the same calculations in a spreadsheet (And got the same figures). To arrive at the phase current you make the following calculations :

1. Calculate from the phase voltages the delta voltages
2. Divide the delta voltages through the heater resistances to arrive at the delta currents.
3. From the delta currents calculate the phase currents

If you do this you indeed get a calculated phase current picture which is opposite in polarity to what the PCE830 shows. However one has to consider that the calculated currents are with respect to the delta. For phase three these are the current at the point where phase three connects to the delta. A negative current at this point means that the current flows into the delta. The PCE830 however will see the current flowing towards the delta and for the PCE830 this is a positive current (If you connect the PCE830 as recommended). So indeed the PCE830 will show a picture with opposite polarities, which is correct.”

“Rossi got 11 Million”, period.
Now point is: how to keep them safe even if someone might ask for a refund? For sure he would be disappointed if only interests from leaning flats should be what he could keep after some few years. Let’s hope he could last at least as long as John Ernest Keely did…

Just FYI where these apartments come from. 🙂
I guess that if all turn to be a fraud (i still doubt it) then there should be something in the contract to protect IH. He would have to go to jail i guess.
In my opinion, if this is a fraud then he must be crazy to play so risky.

—
“Rossi got 11 Million, but He could get billions for it.”

To have sold his technology for Billions would have required a Manufacturing business up & running based on market share & projected growth. Enter GE/Siemens Business deal.

This is not the situation. It is a product in development.

Rossi received $11+ Million with a total of $20 Million when certain milestones are reached. He will then get a percentage of sales once they go to market(About 2% of manufactures cost). Over about 20 years, Rossi or his estate likely will make several Billion$. That’s how it works. That is the standard arrangement in these developments with little room for variation.

I’d like to draw the attention on a further point, concerning power measurements, that deserves some considerations. On page 3 of the TRP2 the authors say:

The E-Cat’s control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable microcontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50 Amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor’s thermocouple.

That is right. Only the TRIACS are actually 6 SCR in anti-parallel. On page 5, just after the wiring schematics, they say:

The two PCEs were inserted one upstream and one downstream of the control unit: the first allowed us to measure the current, voltage and power supplied to the system by the power mains; the second measured these same quantities as input to the reactor. Readings were consistent, showing the same current waveform; furthermore, they enabled us to measure the power consumption of the control system, which, at full capacity, was seen to be the same as the nominal value declared by the manufacturer.

That is, instead, weird. Let’s see why.
The Fusion Controller is to be powered by a second power source to feed the micro and the control electronics. Power supply is a single phase 240V/1.5A (phase + neutral) for a total of 360 W maximum as said before. The power supply input is different from the line input, were the power to be regulated enters the Fusion Controller (see Installation Manual). If you put a PCE upstream and a second one downstream you will not see this disappearing power due to the fact that the 360 W are passing on a different line. They say they saw: that is possible only if they derive the active phase (for instance L1) with a fork from the same Line Input to the power part of the controller and insert the PCE before the splitting point (towards the grid). Until this point no problem: they only made a wrong insertion of the power meter. But…
There is a but here: the Fusion Controller will dissipate some more power on the lines due to the junction dissipation in the SCRs. From the Operation Manual this dissipation scales with current and is equal to 1,3 Watt per Amp per phase. They say they had 40-50 Amp load currents, so that there is an additional loss of 220-275 W for the three phases. So the reading must show at least a 580 W difference that is quite dissimilar from 360 W. And, moreover, it is to be compared to the 900 W they say they delivered to the load during the test run. No mention in the report and this is strange enough.
Maybe, they didn’t fully catch what was meant regarding dissipation in the manual. So, they connected the upstream PCE in the right place; in this case they would have observed only the 220-275 W SCR dissipation: less than the dissipation they expected.

Of course all the matter can be reconsidered in the light of an inverted clamp. But this is another story.

Yes, I couldn’t agree with you more. Rossi’s operations have been both clean and transparent. Just like The Emperor’s New Clothes. It doesn’t take X-ray vision to see through them.

It was really amusing how he divided the globe into Territories, February 2012:

“I must add that practically all the world’s Territories have been already licensed. Soon we will organize a convention of all our Licensees, for the presentation of the E-Cat, in the final shape that will be marketed, and in that occasion we will give the full list of all our Licensees.”

There is a word for this condition …

Pray tell me, what happened to the Licensees; did they all get a refund yet?

“They just have only one industry costumer that will only pay if they device produce enough energy. In my opinion, now as it is, the operation of IH and Rossi has been clean and transparent with respect to money for future clients. He hasn´t asked to invest money for his ECAT yet”

Was not it the same for Hyperion? Only if satisfied or you get a refund… A pity DFK Europe got no refund at all… If no money transfer has took place, how is that Rossi got around 15 floors in Miami? Out of magic? Are not you able to see what’s happening under your nose? Now the choice is up to the investors: will they ask to be refunded, or bet the system could really work, despite all lies, and try to get money from it either believing till the end or selling quotas of wonderful machine to someone else?

Ceo of DFK Europe closed the first, but they are up to a fight and nothing is known since now.

@H-G Branzell
As far as i know, there is no any device sold from Rossi and IH. The have not requested any money and they have put a clear announcement that any ECAT publicity for selling is false.
They just have only one industry costumer that will only pay if they device produce enough energy. In my opinion, now as it is, the operation of IH and Rossi has been clean and transparent with respect to money for future clients. He hasn´t asked to invest money for his ECAT yet.
Besides, the people will not invest massively in a product if there are not first reviews that is working. So don´t fear for the people and delusion, the people that follows LENR want the technology to succeed by facts not by putting money.
I don´t see what kind of fraud is this when he is not asking for money during almost 5 years. It is strange and should make you think about what is his strategy. Big fraud by waiting? or just no fraud and working in device until works safely and reliable?
What do you think?

It was some time after one of our illustrious inventor’s first dog and pony shows. Amazed at the fact that nobody seemed to care about where all the produced steam went I wrote a polite email to the show director explaining how much more convincing the demo would have been had he done something spectacular with the steam like blowing a whistle or cooking some pasta instead of letting it disappear unnoticed.

I also explained to him (the obvious fact!) that a very simple and convincing way to demonstrate the heat flow from the hose would be to take a cool box and pour ten liters of cold tap water into it. Then he would record the temperature and stick down the hose in the water and let it stay there for maybe 15 minutes. Then measure the temperature again and also measure how much water is added to the box. With this data he could easily calculate the heat flow transferred from the hose to the box.

Lo and behold, soon I got a positive answer. “Yes sir, we are presently busy doing just that. We will prepare a report that will be available soon.”

This was around three years ago, no report yet. But first things first, I suppose it is more important to deliver House-Cats to the tens of thousands of eagerly waiting customers to be that have submitted their preorders for this rare animal. It will just take some time. And then I will get the report.

“Measuring the heat output from any of Rossi’s gadgets (save the Mega-Cat) is not that difficult.”
*
Exactly. I don’t expect anything from Rossi or Levi. But I am very disappointed that after all the discussion in various forums including Vortex, Mats and the illustrious Swedish scientists were still completely unable or unwilling to force Rossi to:

a) constrain and measure the input power with their (the scientists’) own equipment entirely ahead/upstream of Rossi’s equipment … and

b) properly calibrate the output power measurement using the very convenient built in heater thoughtfully supplied by Rossi, OVER THE ENTIRE OPERATING RANGE AND IN A PARALLEL RUN WITH ACTIVE AND INACTIVE REACTORS (starting with two empty reactors and fueling one at random, without Rossi in the room). Or if Rossi HAD to do the fueling and ash collection, he needed to be observed by at least four HDTV cameras recording from all angles including overhead!

There is not much in the way of an active hypothesis to account for the obvious lapses, the SECOND TIME AROUND with basically the same setup (!) other than that Rossi is a crook, Levi is either frightfully incompetent or a crook, and the Swedish scientists simply did not do a good job of insisting on a credible test.

Of course still better would be if you conjure up a triac regulator and some resistors as well to match Andrea’s emulation. Seeing is believing. Well, at least part of it …

We are a group of 4 people; we have studied the 6-SCR Fusion controller and we are simulating it with gecko. Moreover we are developing a prototype of controller to perform some measurements. We tried the monophase controller but we have to waint until next weekend to make some more measurements. We have our jobs during the week and we are scattered in different regions of Italy so that phone and mails are the interaction tools; that is not very easy. I’ll keep you informed as soon as a report is available.

Thanks, your hands-on exercise with the vector diagrams is a nice illustration of Andreas S.’s investigation from October 14. I think it would be even better if you could extend it with two more screenshots of the corresponding currents.

Of course still better would be if you conjure up a triac regulator and some resistors as well to match Andrea’s emulation. Seeing is believing. Well, at least part of it …

Thanks for these nice pics. That is interesting. The standard screens do not give any obvious indication of reversed clamps. For example, if they gave power separately for each line it would be a dead giveaway – but they don’t.

Interestingly – the data they use in the report is power integrated over some long interval. It is not clear to me whether they read that from the energy-so-far figure on the screen, or whether they extract it from the data they are logging to a PC. But whichever they can easily not realise that a clamp is reversed.

If, as stated, they have the PCE-830 data stored then it will determine whether a clamp was reversed. Just as it will determine whether resistance of the heater really changed by a factor of 3 as the device heated up from 500C to 1250C.

The PCE-830 stored data will validate both clamp direction (from the sign of the 3 line powers) and how the heater resistance changed during warm-up.

But if mistake there is, it is easier to find under-reading mistakes for power than over-reading ones for current.

@Mark Szl: A reversed current clamp is not the same as an incorrect phase sequence. The phase sequence is defined by the voltages of the phases, and not the currents. Thus a reversed current clamp would not be detected by the instrument.

Because you have access to a PCE 830, can I request that you connect the clamps in the correct sequence to a ‘Three-way AC output’ and post the relevant screenshots.
Then reverse the clamp/clamps and also post those screenshots… Thank you in advance.

Moreover, some tips around let us imagine (we will need a proof of this, of course) that you could reverse a routine instead of a phisical clamp. But still I do think a phisical reverse of a clamp is a tipical trick Rossi could really have made, along with the magic of the Ni62.
Of course, you can still claim it is more likely a totally new reaction has been found by a philosopher, one that no one in the world has ever seen or is able to replicate, no matter how heavy (and supported by which laboratory and brain) he has trying in the last 25 years …

Hi,
An interesting comment from Billy Jackson on Ecat world:
—-
In every hookup phase of the manual for the device it warns to make sure the arrows flow in the same direction as the current anytime it speaks of hooking the clamps up…
i HIGHLY doubt that after 32 days someone didn’t noticed the arrow was pointed in the opposite direction as the other 2…. or that the machine failed to beep and give you a warning for a bad hookup..

(From the manual)
NOTE: page 29
If the voltage of L1, L2, and L3 is not connected in right sequence, the analyzer will
show L1-3-2 in the right top corner, and beep to warn the users of incorrect phase
sequence.
Note: Page 30

In this mode, the analyzer also detects the correctness of the phase sequence. If
the voltage of L1, L2, and L3 is not connected in right sequence, the analyzer will
show L1-3-2 in the right top corner, and beep to warn the users of incorrect phase
sequence.

that series of machine is set up to let you know you hooked it up wrong… page 29-30

Hi Mats,
why are the tester group so silence? I think this critics deserve a clear answer. Do you know when do they plan to release a coordinated answer to all the questions in the lenr forum that clarifies if the test is wrong or not?
Could you provide us a piece of information of what is ongoing behind the curtains?
Thanks

The following comment was made by “DickeFix” in the comments to the article “Requirements of H-Ni LENR Devices and Their Implications on the Lugano Test” on E-catworld, but did then disappear. I think it merits publishing again, as it sums up the comments regarding the last experiment nicely.

“Michael Lammerts question how such large heat generation can occur in such a small volume nickel without it melting is very relevant. In conclusion, we need now explanations to several “mysteries” regarding the E-Cat to make the stated heat generation credible:
1. An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature
2. An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur without any radiation
3. An explanation how all Ni isotopes and most other metals in the fuel can be converted to almost pure Ni62 in the ash
4. An explanation why the generated power didn´t decrease with time despite the fuel was almost burnt out at the end
5 An explanation why the fuel consisted of natural Ni while Rossi repeatadly stated that enriched Ni-62 was an essential ingredient in the fuel
6. An explanation for the completely different ash compositions in ITP test 1 and 2
7. An explanation why the electrical Joule heating increased 6 times when the stated input power only increased 2 times (Giancarlo)
8. An explanation of the unexpected measured current shapes which indicate a reversed current clamp (Andrea S.)
9. An explanation why the Ni didn´t melt if the power was generated by a reaction in the fuel (Dr. Mike)
10. An explanation why the E-Cat gave COP=1 when SP Technical Research Institute (the swedish measurement calibration authority) tested it.
All mysteries 1-10 are solved or circumvented if something happened during the loading of the E-cat so that the fuel inserted had the same composition as the ash and one of the three current clamps of both power meters were reversed. That would also explain the results of first independent test. The COP would then be about unity in all three tests (including SP) and all points 1-10 are solved.
Does anyone here has a simpler and more likely explanation to ALL the ten mysteries without assuming more than one natural miracle; that LENR works?

I am hence NOT a sceptopath! I don´t rule out that LENR is impossible; it would be a fantastic gift to mankind. When I initially saw the results of the recent E-cat test I was excited and believed that maybe LENR was possible. That is why I have followed the E-Cat story and this excellent blog regularly. However, now after more careful analysis, the recent test has created more new questions (points 3-9) than it answered. It is no longer sufficient that LENR works to explain all mysteries regarding the E-cat. And I can not accept more natural miracles, apart from LENR, as an explanation. Explanations with heating coils made of semiconductors,
mysterious magnetic fields or fantastic superconduction at temperatures
far above the present record (138K) are just not realistic.Then I much rather accept the disappointing conclusion that my dream was just an illusion…”

All of the three phase tests so far have the X3 “reverse a current clamp” error mode as a possible reason for COP 3 times higher than real. Personally, I’m not certain Rossi thought he could get away with that this time. There is another (new) error in this experiment relating to incorrect emissivity of Al2O3 at higher temperatures where a larger fraction of the emitted radiation is transparent to the material, so that whatever Al2O3 emissivity is the optical characteristics are dominated by something else. Since the figures used in this test are emissivity 0.4, and at frequencies above where Al2O3 goes transparent the emissivity could easily be much nearer 1, you can see how the flawed methodology of this test would allow a COP > 1 even without the “reverse a clamp” effect.

The single phase tests, as you know, had a range of transparently wrong calorimetry issues:
counting wet steam as dry
misplacing a thermocouple so it is heated direct by conduction from the reactor walls rather than from the output water stream it is supposed to be monitoring
and so on.

He I guess began to run out of these and therefore had the idea of moving to three phase power where input power measurement is more complex and easily spoofed. He has always controlled who has access to his demos, and gets angry with anyone who challenges his views, so you can see how he might end up with a set of testers who accept his statements about how the input power is measured – or – in this case – who are not alert for a mis-oriented current clamp.

I guess if the testers have enough strength of will and state that Rossi did this – they have enough data to discover that – He will just shrug it off as a mistake, or else say they are trying to persecute him. And the charade will continue.

The heating elements are on the outside of the reactor. They must be, anything inside that emits heat will get even hotter due to the thermal resistance of the Al2O3, and we know rossi has trouble with things melting. You can also see, in the given pictures, that the heater is wound on the outside.

Even in your fantasy world it is not rational to make a wire heater on the outside of the e-cat superconductive just because you would like it so to be.

Your arguments in this area have a serious lack of nullability. There is absolutely no behaviour, from any LENR experiment, that would convince you LENR was not happening! You should perhaps reflect on that.

Axil, the experimenters are in error for a) not constraining and measuring the power *upstream* of *any* Rossi device or cable and b) for not running a proper calibration of the output power measurement over the full operating range. Either error could have allowed Rossi and Levi to cheat and deceive just as *every* other experiment performed thus far was defective for similar reasons. It is silly to try to explain away discrepancies based on fanciful and most likely imaginary interpretation of what other researchers have done. Even if true, those interpretations are not relevant to the current tests and they are most likely not correct in any case.

Experiment evidence of superconductivity is seen throughout LENR. I have provided a reference and Celani’s and Miley experiences are well known in the LENR community. Doesn’t experimental experience have any impact on your reasoning, In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to interpreted the behavior of electric flow in the E-Cat as superconductive. Granted, the testers of the E-Cat past and present are at fault for not looking deeper into the unusual behavior of current flow through the E-Cat.

@branzell – I think we cannot assume what the testers looked at during the active test. If they had been as critically aware as you or I they would have noticed the Joule/heating vs power discrepancy and resolved it. Did they check input power during the active test? We do not know. It would be consistent with their flawed approach to check everything in detail for the dummy test and then assume it stayed the same for the active test. Only they can resolve this.

@axil – the heater coils are wound near the outside edge of a 20mm cylinder of alumina. The magic powder is carried by a hole 4mm diameter in the middle. it is just physically separated from the heater coils, so it does not seem likely there would be any influence. Also, we have here a test with an input power error that explains the COP. Trying to explain the error by invoking some unknown effect is circular – since we have no reason to imagine an unknown effect other than the anomalous data.

There is a another possibility. There exists many false assumptions made about the behavior of the Ni-H reactor. This behavior does not conform to expected norms of measurement.

My theory of Ni-H behavior posulates a generalized state of Boson condensation that exists inside the entire structure of the reactor. This superconductive state would result in a increase in the flow rate of electrons inside the reactor and a reduction in electrical resistance. This behavior was seen before in LENR, more specifically, in the wire that Celani used in his experiments.

Dr. G. Miley has also see superconductivity in packets of hydrogen in the nanocavities with in pitted metal hydrides.

My theory of LENR also would expect the formation of electrons as a byproduct of the LENR reaction in violation of the law of charge conservation. I expect to see pions condensed out of the vacuum which would decay into electrons. These pions are the agents that underpin the LENR reaction.

As a result of these unconventional behaviors inside a LENR reactor, calibration usually done in these types of E-Cat experiments are impossible due to these false measurment assumptions as well as the unpredictable behavior of electrically connected sensors affixed to the reactor structure and under the influence of superconductive behavior.

We all agree that if one of the power clamps was turned the wrong way on the PCE-830 that measured the electric power that was sent to the reactor and the associated wiring then the apparent power would be one third of the true power.

But for this theory to hold water the same mistake must have been done with the instrument that measured the power that was input to the control system. Otherwise there is no doubt that the mistake would have been discovered when the readings from the instruments were compared.

The power used by the control electronics was calculated as the difference between the readings from the two PCE-830 instruments and in the report this figure was given for the system at maximum capacity. Maybe the same trick can be applied to determine if clamps were turned.

During the long term test the currents were approximately double the currents used in the dummy test. For the sake of argument let us assume that the losses in the control system are resistive. Then the losses should be four times larger in the long term test than in the dummy test. But if the power is underestimated with a factor of three then it would only appear to be 4/3 times as large.

Maybe this is something that the test group should take a look at? This should not be a problem since during the whole test the data from the PCE-830 instruments was logged.

Apologies, you are right, I am wrong. The phase relationships in voltage are such as to make instantaneous current never better than the rms case of sqrt(3). So the report is 100% wrong.

This error does not actually affect the report results much, but even so is not good.

@andrea.s –

We are all agreed that the Joule heating data is very suggestive of a X3 power measurement discrepancy. That is an understatement – it is not easy to see how else it can exist. Also that a X3 could come from clamp reversal.

It is awesome that you have this additional evidence from the phase of the PCE-830 waveform. I can see how it works, and agree it is highly suggestive as well. Very clever.

Also interesting that the same thing seems true from the TRP1 tests. Though not surprising.

Interestingly, the chances are 2 in 3 that this evidence was available from the picture. If the reversed clamp were line 2 we would never know! Line 1 or 3 have the same effect, since we are looking at relative line 1 to line 3 phase.

Anyway, the testers have easily enough information to say whether yes this is true, or no it is false. They need only see whetehr resistance of heater changes during warmup. I hope someone can make sure that they do answer this question.

beyond the understandable reaction of Rossi (“the clamps were not reversed”) do you have any feedback from the authors as to whether they think the I3 current was indeed flowing in antiphase with the voltage source? And if they exclude probe reversal don’t they think they should address this point and propose an explanation or theory ?

Two weeks ago I published a note on the clamp reversal theory that I linked in this thread.
A reader and ECAT enthusiast (Silvio Caggia) has spotted a slight phase misalignment of the simulations when overlapped to the PCE display and suggested I had deliberately forced the plots to overlap. In a sense he was right, I was probably a bit biased, but there is an explanation that confirms and reinforces the conclusions. I checked and indeed the overlap becomes nearly perfect if one assumes that the PCE is set for a 3-phase 3-wire connection, so that the time origin is on the upwards zero-crossing of V12 rather than V1n.
I post here a link to the corrected note

@Thomas ClarkeIn general we can say that the ratio is some value between 2 and sqrt(3)

I have to disagree. The ratio is never higher than sqrt(3) and can possibly reach sqrt(2) when the firing angle approaches 150°. We do not have triacs but instead we have 6 SRC in antiparallel and the switching sequence is well known in the literature.

The fact that the ratio is always not higher than sqrt(3) is a logical consequence of the network topology only: it does depend neither on the load nor on the current waveform.
It depends only on the fact that you can write the Kirchhoff current law for the three nodes in this way

I = A J

where I is the vector of the 3 line currents and J is the vector of the 3 load currents.

A is the mapping matrix (it changes the coordinate system and the scale).

Well done! A nice write-up. I agree mostly with your conclusions, but precision is important so i must take minor issue with one thing.

(1) The I1/I2 error. undoubtedly the assumption the report authors make is unwarranted. But so i am afraid is yours. This will not matter (see below) but is worth getting right.

If the drive were pure 3 phase Ac then it is well known the ratio of currents I1/I2 must be sqrt(3). The difference from what you might expect, and what the report authors obviously believed, is that the two sinusoidal currents in the two I2 wires are 120 degrees out of phase and hence sum to less then double the amplitude. specifically the two currents can be represented by phasors:
1
0.5+ j*sqrt(3/4)

adding we get
P = 1.5 + jsqrt(3/4
with magnitude
|P| = sqrt(3)

however in this cae the drive comes from triacs. We do not know exactly how these are driven, we can see from the sample waveforms that they are switched on and off actively each cycle – as is possible with triacs. the most straightforward drive circuit would be to have all three lines switched on simultaneously for some part of the waveform and switched off for the rest of the time.

Under this assumption, if the duty cycle is small the ratio approaches 2, as in the report.
If the duty cycle is large the ratio approaches sqrt(3) as above.

In general we can say that the ratio is some value between 2 and sqrt(3).

(2) The above really does not matter. However R is calculated it will affect the dummy calculated wire Joule heating power and the active calculated wire Joule heating power equally. therefore it has no affect on the COP as inferred from Joule heating power.

What matters for the COP as inferred from currents is the ratio of heating powers which does not change with the wire resistance.

(3)Assumptions about heater. I agree with you, the heater most likely is Inconel, or some other similar high temperature metal alloy, and will have a very small positive temperature cofficient as is true of metals.

It could have some air-cored inductance, but at frequencies below 1kHz (above which even with triac switching the waveform power is low) this is small in comparison with the resistance. Any capacitance is very very small compared with the resistance.

This does not matter. Any inductance in series with th resistance would not affect the relationship between current and power, which is all that matters for the calculations.

The heater could in principle be variable resistance with temperature, e.g. SiC etc. As you say this is not what is stated in the report. And for other reasons (resistivity) it is highly unlikely.

Such characteristics could be determined or denied easily by examination of the current and power recorded values during reactor warmup. The report states that these were recorded and preserved.

I have already posted these links here a few days ago, but since then an error in the calculaltions has been corrected. As it turned out, the error was self-cancelling so it did not have the influence on the final result.

I’m trusting whichever of the testing team understands electrical stuff to care about this enough to answer the questions. Assuming one of them does understand the electrical stuff of course – a reasonable hope.

Finally, there might be any number of plausible reasons why the PCE clamps needed to be removed and repositioned on both input and output side of the equipment. No presumption can be made therefore that the experiment is free of this.

My big criticism of the experimental methodology is the lack care over the electrical setup. No stating which measurements are taken from the PCE (total power? line power? etc). No clear statements of whether measurements are RMS or average or peak – though for the calculations to work all must be RMS. No comparison of power in and out over both tests. No statement of triac duty cycle – which would affect the ratio between the RMS C1 and C2 currents used to calculate Joule heating. Not, in the grand scheme of things, significant. But details matter because they allow cross-validation.

The uncertainty now shows the trouble you get into when providing insufficient information about tests. If the testers can be trusted to do it all right there is no problem. As soon as anomalies are found it becomes a problem. And for many, a COP of >> 1 is as big an anomaly as you can ask for, so this test has to be done by the book.

Sorry for all these posts. Reversed claps, even twice, does not imply fraud, just that whomever was putting the clamps on was not aware they had all to be the same way round. For random attachment reverse clamps is the most likely out come ( 6/8). So they chances of this happening randomly on two devices is 36/81 or roughly 50%.

Whereas if one configuration were reversed and the otehr not the total power figures would immediately show this, both reversed would give no warning unless the individual line powers were examined. It is not clear that the testers did that – they would know of course.

One more point. As a possible way that the mistake could have been made a reversed clamp is attractive, it is obviously easy to do and the clamps could have been removed to allow access during powder insertion, and it matches the size of the anomaly observed pretty well.

A reversed clamp configuration could be detected from the phase information for each of the 3 line currents. that will be stored with the PCE data and can be checked.

It would be good to hear from the testers:
(1) did they check powers from both PCEs during the active tests? It is not made explicit when such comparison was done in the report.
(2) have they checked current line phases for a possible reversed clamp anomaly – which if present on both PCEs would not lead to an obvious power difference?

Just a note about the resistance issue. This looks from my reflection so far the most serious thing because either Rossi has an unusual NTC heater element with charactersistics that are NOT NTC over the normal operating range (above 1250C) – not clear such exists – or there is proof of a X3 error in input power measurement for the active tests relkative to the dummy that would bring COP down to near 1.

Luckily the testers have both current and power measurements for the test run every 0.5s. It will be easy for them to compare current vs power for the active run during the slow warmup phase and obtain a precise answer for how does the resistance of the heater element vary with temperature.

I suggest that this be done ASAP. It would settle the matter once and for all. It is a matter of fact, no imputation of fraud etc and it must be done to resolve the anomaly in the current report figures.

@DNI
I repeat earlier findings:
The decreased resistance has had a possible explanation.
The reversed clamps hypothesis requires reversed clamps on both instruments, and in that case must reasonably imply accusation of fraud. You’ll have to discuss this with the team.
Thus, no proof of fraud, only circumstantials, and at this point anyone is free to believe what they want.
I usually don’t accuse people based on circumstantials.

@Joniale: I think you are talking about different issues. Mats is answering you about a possible erroneous calculation of the currents. That possible error will only have a minor impact on COP.

Andrea.s has pointed out a different issue. On the pictures from the test it seems like one of the clamps have been put on the wrong way. And if this is the case the error in measurements is a factor 3.

Giancarlo has also pointed out another strange thing regarding the resistance of the heaters in dummy run compared to real run. The resistance seems to decrease by a factor 3 according to the measurements. And there is a discussion going on if this is possible or not. If it’s not possible it seems to imply a mistake in the measurements.

the discussion on the current partition is little more than academic, but the story of the reversed current plot (justifies a x3 underestimation of input current) and the 1 to 6 ratio of joule-effect power from dummy run to experiment run (again meaning a x3 underestimation of input power) are tombstones on top of the hotcat.

If the authors were to say : “the hot cat is real, the 1 to 6 joule-effect power ratio is correct, the I3 plot is correct and I3 flows in phase opposition to the supply voltage” they should change their title to “Observation of abundant anisotropic thermoelectric energy production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” which would make Rossi’s discovery twice as important.
Forget Stirling engines and turbines, you could stick an alumina dogbone to your bycicle frame and travel for free forever.

Point is : a trick has been found that can give the exact results TPR2 shows as per numbers you read there – which are clearly flawed.

Now a believer could always claim for honesty of the whole Team, but the magician was there. The trick is an easy one, and if it has been prepared properly, it DID NOT REQUIRED magician presence more than at the start of the run phase.
To provide Ni62 for sure, instead, it was better – even if not really necessary – that magician could be there at end.

Or one can always believe in Aladdin’s Lamp, of course.But I am quite sure he will be really disappointed as he will never get the Genious to spread out of it, no matter how hard he would clean the Lamp.

Small, easy tricks, a couple at a time, are all what is required in any Rossi demonstration. And yes, the faith of believers, along with those.

If the authors were to say : “the hot cat is real, the 1 to 6 current ratio is correct, the I3 plot is correct and I3 flows in phase opposition to the supply voltage” they should change their title to “Observation of abundant anisotropic thermoelectric energy production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” which would make Rossi’s discovery twice as important.
Forget Stirling engines and turbines, you could stick an alumina dogbone to your bycicle frame and travel for free forever.

the discussion on the current partition is little more than academic, but the story of the reversed current plot (justifies a x3 underestimation of input current) and the 1 to 6 ratio of currents from dummy run to experiment run (again meaning a x3 underestimation of input power) are tombstones on top of the hotcat.

@Joniale: If the currents are correctly represented in the photo of the measurement device in the report, then the power measurement has an error of underestimating the power with a factor of 1/3. Which is not a minor flaw, as it would remove the whole power gain of the E-cat in the experiment.

Thanks Mats.
I am happy to see that this are only minor flaws. From the comments i had the impression that it was an unforgivable error. Please, i am very happy of see this peer review, since increase the quality and transparency additionally it would be good that the peer reviewers explain facts without exaggerations and drama.

As you’re there, Mats, how about asking for some more pictures of the test? Especially one where you can see numbers from pce 830. There also should be a vectors view, somewhere. And might be one day from Uppsala someone will ask for something more but, by the way, any chance we will see a couple of pictures also from pce 830 during TPR1 test? Or they are buried forever?

@Joniale
I have discussed this and they have said that they will look at this together with other questions. However, the issue with these currents only regards part of the calculation of the Joule heating in the copper wires leading to the resistors, which in turn is a minor part of the energy calculation. It has no significant impact. Still, if it’s wrong it has to be corrected in an updated version.

Per,
It also seems to me that I1=2*I2 is wrong (as I understood it, the ration wasn’t measured but is an assumption).
I looked at your elegant proof, and I made a though experiment with an instantaneous value when triac A and B are open and C closed. I think, if all resistances are equal:
I1a= -I1b
I2ab=(2/3)I1a
I2ca=I2bc= -(1/3)I1a

Since I2ab ≠ I2ca, I2ab ≠ I2bc, the ratio I1/I2 has no sense instantaneously, but at least I1b = 3*I2bc.

I admire you for changing your mind after the technical discussion we had on the blogs we use to attend.
Your comment offers me the occasion to reply to the two offending attacks (as Raman) I received from Mr. Rossi on his blog, reinforced by many other offending comments coming from his brainless supporters.

Mr. Rossi called me an imbecile: I agree fully with him, since I’m loosing my time after his saga at an age that would not allow me to loose the scarce time I have available before the final collection.
My only fault was that I had found what seems to me a serious mistake (the power ratio) and I asked for an explanation to authors (by the way I never got a reply).

Instead of replying in technical terms, Mr. Rossi got upset and questioned my professionality: for those who know my real name I think it is enough to put it in Google Scholar to see that I authored many books and peer-review papers (a few hundreds) on optical communications that have been cited many times; so my incompetence needs something more to be demonstrated that some offending words in capital letters on a personal blog.
I’ve been teaching 25 years Optical Information Theory at PhD level (students had already a Laurea degree in engineering) both in civilian and military courses. if he thinks he’s right just because he screams is completely wrong: persons are able to judge.

So Andrea, I join you in asking for more evidence regarding their electrical measurements; they have all the records and no proprietary waveform can be generated by a commercial controller so there is nothing to hide. Also the phase angle can be calculated from their published data.

For those interested, I have formulated a mathematical proof that the current I1 must be less than or equal to sqrt(3) times I2. Hence it is mathematically impossible to obtain I1 = 2*I2, as they did in the “dummy” run.

I share pretty much the comments of Abbe.
Before I had access to the documents, I was quite fascinated by the man Rossi who, in spite of visible lack of technical and scientific background, had so much backing from eminent scientists from Prof. Focardi to Prof. Essen in his extraordinary claims.
Then I started studying the reports and I disliked them.
The TPR1 had inconsistencies, and the TPR2 (expected to resolve them) is worse.
The problem is, when analyzing a report one has to stick to the report and not be biased or intimidated by the qualification of the authors.
The main inconsistencies which must be clarified in my view are
1. instrument shown in overload
2. instrument showing apparently inverted current waveform consistent with 3-fold overestimation of input power
3. inconsistent power ratio from dummy run to experiment run for the joule heating
4. evident flaw in computation of current partition for the joule heating (not significant for COP but disturbing).
If the hotcat is real, and if the test was properly led, it will be very easy for the Authors to shut our mouths with evidence.

Concerning point 4, I have posted an earlier comment which is wrong. Whatever the conduction angle of the triacs, the ratio of input rms current (each of three inputs) to currents in the resistor loads (any of the three delta connected resistors) is sqrt(3). I was tricked but a discussion with Giancarlo aka Raman over the blogs convinced me and i found the miscalculation.
Certainly the ratio is not 2 as stated by the TPR2, and as strongly confimed by Rossi and some of his fans on blogs.
It took myself an hour of time, dedicated within two days of Giancarlo’s peer review of my comment, to find and admit the error. I hope the authors, whose error is worse, will not take six months to admit at least this trivial mistake.
But what they should do in priority is provide raw data and evidence of the electrical input power.

I should actually have put the word “skeptics” in quotation marks because real skepticism is acutally pretty much the opposite of the mindset I was refering to.

@Abbe: I don’t know whether you are a true skeptic or a pathoskeptic. You seem to have found a significant inconsistency in the report. If you are a skeptic you should politely ask the authors to adress those issues and hope that your criticism helps to further illuminate things. If you are a pathoskeptic – like Pomp and Ericsson – your only concern is confirm to your preconceived notion that the E-Cat is a fraud and to use your criticism to undermine the authors’ credibility.

You can come up with a factual criticism – and use it either constructively or destructively.

@Timar: I do not know if you address me as one of the “sceptics”, but I would like to point out that the errors in the report and in Rossi’s comments that I have discussed here are independent of whether the E-cat works as advertised or not.

@Mats: At least two of the triacs must be conducting at the same time for a current to flow. This comes from Kirchoff’s laws and the rule of charge conservation. By knowing the currents in all three leads l1at a certain time instant it is possible to calculate the current in each l2 for the same moment in time.

My main concern is that there is by now two known major mistakes in basic electrical engineering in the report. They are the use of a measurement instrument in saturation for documenting measurements, and the misuse of Kirchoff’s law. This does not build confidence for the results and procedures presented in the report.

Timar, I find ridiculous that matter for McKubre should be:“the ash composition from SIMS is:58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%),64Ni (0%).” These percentages add to 100.4%”
or, after have stated“this report provides valuable impetus and strong support for the case that nuclear effects occur (implicitly by novel pathways) in the solid state” which is a clear declaration of faith in Rossi E Cat, that matter should be:“What kind of electromagnetic stimulation? How much? How was this measured? “
If this is the serious way to read this report and tell matters, then you’re a true pathoskeptic (which you’re clearly not)

@Abbe
Thanks Abbe. I see your point regarding phasor representation.
This would mean that we don’t yet know the true value of I2 for sure — you would have to use some tool for calculating I2 from instantaneous values of I1 in the three phases (maybe you could make an estimate from an assumption that the short current pulses in the three phases never coincide?).
On the other hand, I2 is only a the base for a part of the calculated Joule heating, and the Joule heating in turn is a minor term in the energy calculation. As far as I understand, I2 is not used anywhere else.

@Cimpy: How does it come that you assume I would suggest that there is no valid and constructive criticism of the report? There have been a few interesting points brought up here, although unfortunately often stated in a simplistic and negativistic way (they more or less imply that the testers are either grossly imcompetent or conspiring with Rossi to commit a fraud) which makes it hard to take them seriously, as I have explained below. Michael McKubre wrote what I would call a constructive in-depth criticism of the report:

@Mats: Kirchoff’s laws are applicable to all circuits for the instantaneous values of the current and voltage. It is possible to extend it to the phasor representation, where the current and voltage are represented either as a complex number or as an amplitude and phase. But then it is important to remember that the phasor representation is for a single frequency, thus it is only usable for sinusoidal signals with a limited bandwidth. It is not at all suitable for a switched signals such as the one driving the E-cat.

And Kirchoff’s laws are only applicable in some special cases for RMS-values of signals. A switched three-phase system is not one where it is usable. For this case the analysis has to be done in the time domain for the instantaneous values of current and amplitude.

“it stems mostly from the a priori assumption that the E-Cat is a fraud and tries to find issues in the report to prove that assumption.”

In case you did not notice, there are issues with report that even believers are taking seriously. And those who claim it is all perfect (or even that you might never say how it is) should wonder if they are not a bit biased. A tiny bit. Or at least you could stop let us thinking you think we are all morons the same way.

@andrea.s
Sorry or the delay Andrea. When there’s a certain number of links in the comment, it gets sent to me for moderation, and I didn’t have time to check comments until now. I trashed what seemed to be identical comments and left only the first. Tell me if something needs correction.

In any case, my understanding is that Kirchoff’s law is valid in all circuits, but when you deal with phase shifts you have to use complex numbers, or some other method to include the phase shift information.

This recent dicussion here, although bringing up some interesting points, is showing a fundamental problem with most criticism of the report: it stems mostly from the a priori assumption that the E-Cat is a fraud and tries to find issues in the report to prove that assumption. The problem with such criticism is that the cat is still a dark-grey box (not quite black since the last report, but certainly not translucent like Al2O3 – sorry for the jibe 😉 and not expected to behave in an “ordinary” way other than to respect the laws of thermodynamics. Moreover, cat and controller form a system of unknown principles. The assumption that we deal with a simple electrical circuit with resistive heating wires is utterly naive (and only compelling if you are already convinced that the E-Cat is a fraud). Hence the observed non-linear resistance may either be interpreted as an indication that the whole investigative team of accomplished scientists made sloppy measurement errors – as if they inattentively set up some boring routine experiment for a physics tutorial – or as complex nonlinear behaviour of the E-Cat system (involving the effects of unknown alloys, induction and feedback loops) providing a proxy for the COP – which, however, is an interesting observation in its own right. The same argument can be made for most other criticism – it is based on the flawed assumption that the E-Cat is essentially an ordinary resistive heater.

To further elaborate on Rossi’s answer as linked below.
His last two points about applying Kirchoff’s law to the point C in the circuit are:

“THE ALIMENTATION CABLING OF THE REACTOR IS COMPOSED BY MEANS OF 2 PARTS FOR EVERY ROW:
1- ONE PART FROM THE CONTROL SYSTEM TO THE JOINT (C); THIS PART IS NAMED C1
2- AFTER THE JOINT C THE SAME CURRENT IS SUBDIVIDED INTO 2 ROWS HAVING THE SAME SECTION AND LENGTH: WE CALL THEM C2
BASED ON THE KIRCHHOFF LAW ( ALSO CALLED KICHHOFF JUNCTION RULE) , WE CAN MAKE THE DEDUCTION THAT THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS THROUGH THE ROW C1 IS EQUAL TO THE DOUBLE OF THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS ALONG EACH OF THE ROWS NAMED C2.”

If we name the three connection points CA (being point C in Rossi’s description), CB and CC, and their connections to the control box C1A, C1B and C1C respectively, the conclusion in 2 above is wrong. This as the potential in points CB and CC will only have the same potential when both the triacs connected to C1B and C1C are open, and thus all points CA, CB and CC have the same potential, and no current is flowing in the circuit.

In all other cases the potential of CB and CC will be different, and the current division will not be made 50/50. Rossi is also neglecting currents in the resistors C2 due to the potential difference of CB and CC. Kirchoff’s law is still valid, it is only misused in the quote by Rossi above.

I have here assumed that Figure 4 in the report is correct, and that all the resistors indicated there are equal.

@Mats: To elaborate, Kirchoff’s law is not always valid for RMS-values, as they are a type of mean values, and not instantaneous. This is especially true for a three-phase system, where the potentials between the three phases change with respect to each other. Thus Kirchoff’s law cannot be applied to RMS-values of the currents in a delta-coupled resistor network, as is also shown by andrea.s.

since you bring up the issue of currents, and since my comments on the JoNP [1] get spammed by A.R. (Automatic Robot), I will post here a reply showing that the analysis by Rossi (reflecting the TPR2) is flawed.
Thanks in advance for your hospitality.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that both Andrew’s and your computations are wrong for what concerns the partition of an RMS current input into the resistor delta.

Andrew states that I1rms/I2rms = sqrt(3) but this only holds for a linear, time-invariant three-phase circuit (i.e. with all triacs closed, which is not the case in your setup unless one intends to melt the reactor).

When the triacs intervene, I1rms/I2rms decreases down to sqrt(2) till the current pulses are no longer overlapped (as is likely the case during the test of the dummy reactor).

In no case I2rms=I1rms/2 : Kirchhoff’s law applies to I1 and I2, not to their root mean squares.
I have posted a few images to illustrate this:

@Giancarlo
However — regarding the discussion on Kirchoff’s in a three phase system, I believe that the present situation with very short pulses, where at least one of the resistors is without current at any given time, might be a special case which can be handled like DC, so that I1=2 * I2. Could that be correct?

Since he was not very polite, I’d like to reply to him, but I do not think he will allow me to reply on his journal. So, since this is a very visible blog but it is also your house, I ask you the permission to reply here; I promise I’ll try to be as polite as I can.

It’s a pleasure to be having a civilized discussion with you. I am certainly no expert on these matters, so please be patient as I try to get up to speed. Some responses:

“Actually that is the surface temperature; if any fusion joint exists it is inside the inner core.”

Do you mean the center of the cap or the core of the middle section of the reactor? I agree that the fusion joint will be at the center of the cap, but I don’t see why it would necessarily be in the center of the middle section of the reactor (i.e., the reactor core).

“What can be the temperature there?”

Assuming you’re referring to the center of the cap, I don’t know. I presume less than the melting point of incanel. I guess if I really wanted to figure this out I would go back through the report and try to, but I don’t have the time right now. I kind of doubt it would be more than double the temperature emitting from the surface. Actually, now that I think about it, aren’t those numbers in figure 6 supposed to be estimated internal temperatures based on the emissivity of the alumina surface? I know I could answer that question by looking through the report right now, but no time.

“Moreover, Mats just told us that the coil resistance is very low during the test run, so that most of the power will be dissipated inside the short piece of inconel.”

So here is where I start to lose you. When you say “coil resistance” I assume you are referring to the coil of wire inside the reactor. So the power flows from the controller through copper cables, then through the inconel wire then presumably to the internal coil. But if the coils have a lower resistance than the inconel (at least at higher temperatures) then wouldn’t more power then flow to the reactor at this higher temperature rather than being dissipated by the inconel wires? (Or the copper wires, for that matter.) In fact, isn’t that what the joule heat readings are basically telling us, that proportionally more of the current is flowing into the reactor (coils) at higher temperatures? And if it’s not, is it really surprising or hard to believe that the internal temp of the caps is lower than the melting point of inconel?

By the way, earlier I found some interesting charts on semiconductors showing exactly the kind of asymptotic decreases in resistivity as a function of temperature that we’re talking about here. Here is one:

This kind of curve would exactly explain observation of higher resistivity at lower temperature and a much lower but apparently linear resistivity at a higher temperature. It is also described here as “typical” of semiconductors.

And BTW, here is another graph I found that (as far as I can tell) shows how you can induce a kind of step-wise noncontinuous change in resistivity (though as Mats mentioned such step-wise changes are not necessary in this case):

“The total length is about 80 cm. and the resistance 1,2 ohm during the dummy run. If the short piece is 5 cm, the resistance of the two inconel terminals will be 1,2 / 8 that is 0,15 ohm.
During the test run we were told that the resistance falls to 0,3 ohm circa, so that half of the power will be dissipated inside the inconel terminals. That is 150 W per joint.”

OK, I’m basically lost here. The total length of what is 80cm? Each of the 6 copper wires are 50 cm. The reactor is 20 cm. Where are you getting the 1.2 ohm figure for the dummy run? Why would half the power be dissipated inside the inconel terminals if the resistance of the coils inside the reactor drop to 0.3 ohm (similar to question from above)? And finally, assuming you reached the correct conclusion, what is the significance of 150W per joint? Please spell out the implications of this conclusion. Thank you.

Finally, can I just point out that this analysis may be making unwarranted simplifying assumptions about the nature of the semiconductor that makes up the internal coils. The wikipedia article Mats linked to seems to indicate that these simple formulas break down in complicated geometries and other circumstances.

Actually that is the surface temperature; if any fusion joint exists it is inside the inner core. What can be the temperature there? Moreover, Mats just told us that the coil resistance is very low during the test run, so that most of the power vill be dissipated inside the short piece of inconel.

The total length is about 80 cm. and the resistance 1,2 ohm during the dummy run. If the short piece is 5 cm, the resistance of the two inconel terminals will be 1,2 / 8 that is 0,15 ohm.
During the test run we were told that the resistance falls to 0,3 ohm circa, so that half of the power will be dissipated inside the inconel terminals. That is 150 W per joint.

Table 6 of the report shows that the temperatures of the e-cat caps are *much* lower than the body temperature (e.g. line 16 shows 611c vs. 1411c). If the wires are ‘spliced’ in the cap then I don’t think there is anything out of order … or am I missing.

“Let’s not jump to conclusions”
Let’s not jump at all. Let’s wait for next story – could it be he used Dark Matter, inside his powder? Or might be resistor are from a special metal from a meteor – Vibranium, was not it?…

“However, the authors are lying since they say the resistors are made by incomel. This is not ethically acceptable from University Professors.”

Let’s not jump to conclusions. They may be correct that the resistors connecting the copper wire to the e-cat are made of inconel, but they (and we) do not know what material the resistors inside the e-cat are made of (assuming there are any). It has been pointed out that inconel would have likely melted inside the reactor, so it is likely that the alloy of any resistors inside the reactor is not inconel.

@MatsThe exponential decrease could take place in this interval, explaining the values at both ends (450 and 1200 degrees).

I take full note of the fact that they knew before measurement which temperature they would have reached so that the semiconductor non-linear resistors could do their job well. I also take full note of the fact that they knew in advance which would be the fuel consumption.

Do you think that the semiconductor stuff would be still valid were the actual temperatures much lower than those (erroneously) measured?
Have you been informed if Rossi has modified the thermal conductivity of the alumina or it was a standard product? Or do you think that the thermal conductivity can be modified as well by the presence of a misterious nuclear (maybe non-nuclear) reaction?

@Giancarlo
We’re not looking for a step decrease. We know nothing about the characteristics between 450 and 1200 degrees, where data is lacking. The exponential decrease could take place in this interval, explaining the values at both ends (450 and 1200 degrees). My understanding is that at a certain point, resistivity in semiconductors cannot decrease more, and that the material then starts to behave more like a metal. This could be the case between 1200 and 1400 degrees.
Calling such a material incomel might be wrong — that is beyond my knowledge — but there might be some confusion if a provider of incomel materials have been asked to develop and produce it.

@Mats
I know that the resistivity of semiconductors decreases exponentially with the temperature; but we are looking for a step decrease: resistivity is 3 @ 500°C and 1 costantly above this temperature; it is a completely different matter, as you can understand. I would be interested in buying such materials: I see a lot of possible applications. Do you know if it is a Rossi’s patent like the hydrogen pill?
However, the authors are lying since they say the resistors are made by incomel. This is not ethically acceptable from University Professors.

Must be a joke: as soon as you find a matter, they find something that could explain – even something never seen like cyclic transmutations… And there are some that claim they would investigate with scientific method the existence of Angels (!)
OMG!
I am lucky I did not study in same school.

@Giancarlo
If you search for ‘resistivity decreases with temperature’ you soon find that semiconductors is a possible example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity#Semiconductors“The electric resistance of a typical intrinsic (non doped) semiconductor decreases exponentially with the temperature.” (down to a certain point of course).
Materials physicists have confirmed to me that the values in this case are within a possible range.
I don’t know if this is the right answer, nor exactly how you would implement it, or why you would use it. One possible explanation could be a self-regulating effect, but I guess that those who designed the reactor and who know the process in detail, have had good reasons for their choice.

@Mats
Could please provide us with just an example of a suitable material (current peak 200A)? I think they could profitably used in electric brakes on trains. It’s strange they have not been used yet.
I thank you in advance for any information.

Do you have any idea why they are used in the hot cat? You would need much less current with traditional resistors. The active charge is located in a different vessel tube.

Oops, I misread you. You wrote “I have been told by materials physicists that such materials are possible.” But I read that as “impossible.” So just to confirm, you’ve been told that they ARE possible? Or did you mean to write impossible instead?

@Josh G
That’s right, but it’s not new — this was the immediate explanation Rossi gave before to this issue.
And it’s is still the explanation I have received when I have asked.
What is required, more in detail, is a material in the resistors with a resistivity that decreases by a factor three somewhere in the interval from 450 to 1200 degrees Celsius, and then remain fairly constant in the interval from 1200 to 1400 degrees. I have been told by materials physicists that such materials are possible.

So, Frank Acland over at e-cat world just posted some comments Rossi apparently made on JoNP and then deleted. In them he wrote: “the resistances do not have a linear response to the temperature in the coil of the E-Cat and the heat dissipation is totally different from the copper cables.” If true, this could explain the discrepancy in amp-to-joule heating ratios, no?

“The only thing funny so far is your english”.
Happy you enjoied.“There are to many respected scientists who have reported findings that suggest that some form of lenr is taking place”
A pity none has been replicated outside the cold fusion believers

[In] the school? The same school were you learned english and epistemology? I think I pass that one, if you don’t mind
I do not mind – I already know we have been attending different kind of school.

You wrote: “It is not real – at least, not as it is presented.”

How do you know? Voices in your head?
No, I heard the voices in your head.

[In] the school? The same school were you learned english and epistemology? I think I pass that one, if you don’t mind.

———

You wrote: “Then go to see how these funny people are saying they are achieving fusion – that should be enough for a normal person to understand something does not sound good. If for you everything is fine, it is a non sense to ask me: I will not be able to help you.”

There are to many respected scientists who have reported findings that suggest that some form of lenr is taking place, for me to discard them as “funny people”. The only thing funny so far is your english.

Take a ride in the school, it might help you. Then go to see how these funny people are saying they are achieving fusion – that should be enough for a normal person to understand something does not sound good. If for you everything is fine, it is a non sense to ask me: I will not be able to help you.

You wrote: “No neutrons – how do you know? – earth pressions -how do you kniw? – and Coloumb barrier -how do you know? – and chances to get a tunnel effect -how do you know? – are enough for me. But of course, you can always claim there is no need for a miracle or two as – how do you know? You did not find it, thus you cannot exclude you will not the next day. B. Russel is still laughing.”

I have to say that your english is somewhat eh … strange, is that a good word? Earth pressions, what on earth is that (no pun intended)? Beyond that I decipher – “no neutrons, Coulomb barrier, tunnel effect” – right? These are well known factors in standard high energy particle physics, yes, but that’s not the issue here. The issue here is a new type of phenomena that is, if real, not possible to explain with the physics known today.

There are two possible approaches to this:

1. This is contrary to everything we know in physics, so it have to be wrong, period.

2. This is seemingly contrary to everything we know in physics, so we have to properly investigate it in order to see if there is something we have missed.

No neutrons – how do you know? – earth pressions -how do you kniw? – and Coloumb barrier -how do you know? – and chances to get a tunnel effect -how do you know? – are enough for me. But of course, you can always claim there is no need for a miracle or two as – how do you know? You did not find it, thus you cannot exclude you will not the next day. B. Russel is still laughing.

Thomas, what? Guess.
By the way, if you went to school and d id the homework, you should know you should speak about probability of some reaction t i happen. You should be able to understand how much is that to happen and thus how much likely good is to search for it in E Cat. At least Carpinteri calls angels in aid – that’s exactly what LENR need: angels.

You wrote: “Man, the mai point is that E Cat does no cold fusion at all, and I am referencing all the miracles that should have happened so to believe it should work(ed) while the Entrepreneur (well known to be a genius, the most advanced physic of matter, a high level engineer and a nuclear expert none could dare to compare to, and extremely believable expecially due to his adamantine past) tells you each time new stories and builds by his own hands new kind of revolutionary machines each time discarding previouses that clearly were not enough magical.”

My question wasn’t about Rossi, it was about the possibility of lenr in general.

——-

You wrote: “By the way, as you cite miracles in Cold Fusion also outside E Cat, I confirm you that I do not believe in those miracles.
How do I know? For the same way I know there are not Angels looking at me (and you) from the sky (or whatever place you like): because I do not hear them laughing.”

My question wasn’t if you believe in miracles, it was if you believe that lenr, if real, necessarily have to be a miracle. That is, if lenr is real it has to violate current physics including the standard model.

Man, the mai point is that E Cat does no cold fusion at all, and I am referencing all the miracles that should have happened so to believe it should work(ed) while the Entrepreneur (well known to be a genius, the most advanced physic of matter, a high level engineer and a nuclear expert none could dare to compare to, and extremely believable expecially due to his adamantine past) tells you each time new stories and builds by his own hands new kind of revolutionary machines each time discarding previouses that clearly were not enough magical.

By the way, as you cite miracles in Cold Fusion also outside E Cat, I confirm you that I do not believe in those miracles.

How do I know? For the same way I know there are not Angels looking at me (and you) from the sky (or whatever place you like): because I do not hear them laughing.

You wrote: “It is always a big shift and a revolution when you have to let miracles enter physic, like transmutation to Ni62 without neutrons or overunity machine that should be able to enter a self sustain mode or Rossi not telling a lie in ten words, to name only three big miracles reported in this story.”

Ah, you are referring to Huizenga’s “three miracles”?! So, you are excluding a priori any possibility of hitherto unknown reactions which could be explained within current physics including the standard model?

That is, since we already know that any kind of low energy nuclear reactions within condensed matter nuclear physics is 100% impossible, there is zero need for a proper evaluation of all the data generated by hundreds of scientists in world class laboratories since 1989?

It is always a big shift and a revolution when you have to let miracles enter physic, like transmutation to Ni62 without neutrons or overunity machine that should be able to enter a self sustain mode or Rossi not telling a lie in ten words, to name only three big miracles reported in this story.

You wrote: “As you know: new findings should not be in contrast with all the previous findings -they should accommodate, while here we should have a shift that would be inconceivable with previous findings … ”

Mats, Putting aside these clamp gate claims in cobra fortum being redilicous (AFAIK clamp direction simply does not mater when measuring AC).
I’m more concerned on how narrowsighted todays academic world is (Pomp et.al). If something cannot be proven by maths and current theoriesof physics, it does not mean that all trials should be bashed and called nonsense. Detecting extra heat in tests should rise curiosity instead.and drive scientistst toward finding truth by trying to replicate test and studying ash analysis reports with passion newer seen before.

I think you Mats and MFMP is doing very important work here and want to thank you making sure this invention is not sent to history of failed tests, before studied and analyzed carefully this time. Think what would be sitiuation with climate change challenges if Fleichman&Pons findings were taken seriously first time 25 years ago!
Keep up the good work and don’t let those comments masquqred with scientific terms lead you off the track.

No way, maryyugo, to make Houdini let you build a cage from which he could not escape – that is: no blank or measure or instrument would do the only work that could make sense: have the device tested FAR away from magician and (supposed) partners.

sigh…”
*
Well, look, you’re the guy who sat by uncritically tolerating that Rossi ran his various original experiments with steam and with the heat exchangers without blanks and without controls. That was well… silly. You as well as Kullander and Essen should have told Rossi that without those, the experiment was worthless because nobody knew if the steam was dry (in the first case) and nobody knew if the thermocouples were properly placed (heat exchanger case).

In the two so-called “indipendent” experiments, the input power to the entire experiment should have been constrained by a power source provided by the experimenters. That would make this whole discussion moot.

Having said that, I hope that this line of investigation and that of the replication by the MFMP leads to something interesting.

@Mats: There is one thing that is nagging me about that story. Do you know if Rossi said anything about that the E-cat showed a much lower COP than he expected during the test? Because if it had been working before, then the measured COP must have been a product of the actual COP and the mis-measured input power. The alternative is that the COP was the same during the test as during development, which should point in the direction that this model of the E-cat newer worked. This is assuming that Rossi used the same measurement equipment during the development as in the test, which I think is natural.
As you were present during the test, do you have any more info on this?

@Abbe
You can read my book. Rossi had difficulties to accept the facts.
But obviously his instruments couldn’t handle the cut off wave form from the Triac-feeding. The true RMS instruments from SP showed the problem. COP was 1, possibly rising at the end of the measurement which was terminated earlier than planned, partly because of a fuse, partly because the Swedish group lost confidence.

@Mats: Do you have any more details on that? Because the initial reports stated that Rossi did not accept the way that SP was measuring the power, and that he did get another results with his measurements?

@Giancarlo
…text from report pag. 5..
“The two PCEs were inserted one upstream and one downstream of the control unit: the first allowed us to measure the current, voltage and power supplied to the system by the power mains; the second measured these same quantities as input to the reactor. Readings were consistent, showing the same current waveform; furthermore, they enabled us to measure the power consumption of the control system, which, at full capacity, was seen to be the same as the nominal value declared by the manufacturer.”

@Mats: There are multiple possibilities. We do not know how the test was monitored, if all the authors were there every day checking all connections and readings, or if just one technician were there every other day making sure that the things were still on. We do not know when the OL condition occurred, or if it were corrected on one or both instruments. We do no not know if both instruments were logged. In general we do not know enough of the procedure to be able to say that it is not possible that only one of the current sensors were installed wrong, even if it may be more probable that both were. But then we do not know who connected the current sensors to the E-cat control box. So it is very hard to assign the possible blame from the outside.

But I do think that the case of the orientation of the current sensors is a very important question to the authors.

@Abbe
Then please address my question. How do you believe that it’s possible to stick to this hypothesis, unless probes were switched on both instruments?
Your general questioning of the researchers’ expertise in this field is not good enough. The discrepancy between the instruments would be so obvious that even a child could notice it. It doesn’t require expertise.

@ Mats: I am not accusing the authors of fraud. But I am questioning their expertise within the field of electrical measurements. Especially as they think it is ok to use a spectrum measured by an instrument in saturation in a scientific publication.

It is also notable that the authors did not invite and make use of the expertise of SP, as they are a well known resource of measurement expertise in Sweden. Especially as they have had some experience of measuring the E-cat already at another occasion.

Going from the first to the second period, the measured temperature increases from 1530 to 1670 K (+ 9.1% approximately). Table 7 shows that the estimated heat radiation increases from 1700 to 2400 W (+ 41%).

As is known, the radiant power varies with the fourth power of the absolute temperature. Therefore, a temperature increase of 9.1% corresponds to an increase of 42% of the radiant heat. This is sufficient to explain the apparent “gain amplification” claimed in the TPR2.

@Abbe
Unless you accuse the whole group of fraud I don’t understand your point.
If you didn’t switch probes on both instruments, someone would have noticed during the 32 days that they were showing completely different values. I don’t believe that one of the instruments was in overload all the time, and that everyone thought this was ok.

@andrea.s
Try to see it as an non-linear amplifier. First you put in 1 and you get out roughly one. No amplification.
Then you put in 1 more and get an increase of 2.
Total amplification is 1.5 (the numbers are not exactly as in the report, where you end up with 1.2),
but what you should note is the increase in amplification, getting a double increase of the output compared to the increase in input.
Putting in another 1 you could expect an increase of 3 of the output.

@Mats: It is not necessary that they would have to change the probes on both power-meters to get this error. The by now famous photo (figure 5) in the report shows that at least at one occasion one of the power meters were saturated, or overloaded, and thus would give no numerical measurements to compare with the other one.

Given the criticality of the thermographies and of the convection calculations, a 20% margin over COP 1 would not be conclusive.

I don’t criticize this section on emissivity and convection, I think it is well presented – for what my opinion is worth – but I consider it very difficult to achieve 20% accuracy on a corrugated, semitransparent, white surface.

@Andrea.S
I agree. And given the issue with the measured power which doesn’t correspond to the increase in current, as calculated from the value of Joule heating, I think it would be wise to disclose data on the measured currents.
I’m still trying to understand if this discrepancy could be explained by other differences during the effective run.

There’s also this thing to consider: After two weeks, the input power was increased by about 100 watts, which would correspond to about 300 watts in reality, if we believe in the hypothesis of a reversed clamp. But the output radiated power was increased by 700 watts. More than twice as much. This could mean that COP rises very fast, from roughly one to two, when increasing the temperature a few hundred degrees.

Rossi calls us morons on the JoNP and states that only the Professors had access to the clamps.

I personally never said (or thought) that Rossi tampered with the measurement setup.

I would like to have a clear explanation, not from Rossi but from the authors, for the current waveforms, and will be ready (and even happy for the sake of scientific progress) to publicly apologize if they can convince me.

I will quote myself :
“The authors, for their own sake and that of the scientific community, are invited to provide
sufficient evidence (additional photos, raw data, non-ambiguous explanations) that such an occurrence can be excluded”.

I don’t see why an open and precise description of the test setup, and an open dissemination of input power raw data would violate a trade secret, whereas the isotopic composition of the charge was openly divulgated.

@Mats
Sorry Mats, but I think you are a honest man and I have nothing against you so I do not like to say that your comments are wrong (since, I think, you reply too fast): take your time to fully understand the problem. I will be here. We have always problems with three-phase. Remember the Swedens.

@Giancarlo — exactly which values did you use, and from where, to calculate the ratio between dissipated power in the copper cables and in the resistances during the dummy run? I still haven’t found it.

@Cimpy — Ok, in that case you both need to explain again. I found only the power values for the effective run in the table. Assuming that there was another ratio in the dummy run (I didn’t find those values), I can only see one explanation: in a circuit in series the current is the same and thus the ratio of power depends only on the resistances. If ratio is changed, one or both resistances have changed value. Or did you mean something else?

“but if this was the case, the ratio would have been as noticed, but this wouldn’t have made the measurement erroneous”
I am sure even some professor from Uppsala would embrace your way of thinking. Unluckily for you, science is a different kind of matter, and you should seek truth, not wishful thinking. Take a second look to table and numbers from Giancarlo, then ask to yourself how hot was E Cat during the run.

@Cimpy — look, I think you have to have a clear idea in mind before saying this.
When I think about it, I believe the ratio Giancarlo mentions could theoretically have been altered simply by decreasing the resistance in the copper wires by a factor 3 in the dummy run (shorter wires for example). They are connected in series — same current — voltage over the copper wires divided by three through Ohm’s law, and thus dissipated power also divided by three, whereas the voltage over the resistors and, and the power dissipated in them, is approxiamtely uncganged.
I cannot understand why they would have changed wires, but if this was the case, the ratio would have been as noticed, but this wouldn’t have made the measurement erroneous.
What I mean is that the way it was done, or the explanation, matters.

@Mats
I know the observations by Andrea s.
Yes, they are consistent with mine if the dummy test was the rigth one.
Instead of reading 2700 W you read 900 W, while the line currents (power in the wires) are measured well by means of amperclamps.

” explain different ways how it could occur — on purpose or not”
That’s material for lawyers, not for scientists.
Once the error is pointed out, the excess does not exist any more – what are you speaking about Mats? Were not we here to discover if E Cat does fusion or not? Are you interested in gullibles and tricksters? I thought that was stuff for kids like me and perhaps #i #Melchior#/i# or the like…

My point of view is a bit different: I suffered less pain when the truth was clear, as he cheated himself in the first instance, or at least he strongly helped Greeks in cheating himself, as he denied what his senses were telling him, from temperature, to noise and even magnetic field (I ask you again, Mats: how was the room? And any metal object on your pockets? Where did you left your home keys? How about glasses? A watch? Any pants zip?…but you can always answer “sigh”, I would understand 😉 )

@Giancarlo — I’m sorry if I offended you. I just wanted to make sure that you used all your exertise also to try to find out a possible explanation to this discrepancy. In the end you haven’t even provided a concrete suggestion to how it could occur assuming that something was altered intentionally. What could have been altered — the physical device or the measurement? Could this observation by Andrea.s. be an explanation?http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123566844_1.pdf
It seems to me that such a measurement error wouldn’t alter the ratio you mention. So — what I ask you to do is explain different ways how it could occur — on purpuse or not.

MatsAnd I hope you’re not fearing the consequences, should it turn out that this process is true and valid.

Frankly speaking I do not like your reply mostly the last sentence. Since this is your home I will not replicate that such a sentence, reversing true and valid, applies to you as well.

I’m not saying it’s a fraud and the authors incompetent. I’m only saying that there is a heavy mistake in one of the two measurements. Since the mistake is exactly equal to the COP, if the mistake is proven the energetic gain will disappear istantaneously.

You are trying to move the discussion from the technical side to the personal side: Rossi already did it

attacking me after the Professors forwarded him my mail (I never cited Ohm or shunts in the blog he is referring to. Neither I ever qualified as Professor there; only in the letter). This was inconvenient from them: not very serious in the scientific field. Do you still think they are independent?

Rossi’s reply convinced me that my observations are right and it is difficult to answer them, so it is better an ad hominem approach. By the way I got more publications and books than the authors, so why I can not be trusted according to your authority principle?

I’m sure I will not get any scientific reply from them: this is not the way an author should proceed.
I’m a reviewer both for scientific papers and EU projects: no one of the proponents ever attacked me on a personal basis: this is a clear indication of a weakness on the scientific side.

Rossi’s reply pointed to the wrong direction: he said that the load resistance increases non linearly with the temperature. You are saying similar things, that the impedance of the coils could have some importance. You are both wrong: you must search for an explanation that lowers the resistance of the coils by a factor of 3+.

Pulse explanation makes no sense: the load is linear and theory of system is clear enough. Pulse response is commonly used to describe such systems although afterward you use them at 50 Hz.

As a last comment, I knew already the trick since a couple of weeks when you were fouled by Defkalion in Milan. I felt a sense of pain when I see you cheated that way; others, those of the day before, they had been warned and fled; you alone were left in the skit. We didn’t know you were coming.

“I, who have met all these people including Rossi and Levi, and have had the opportunity to assess them, I believe that they are competent and have made this measurement in good faith”.

You, who have been in the same room with an Hyperion, believe at numbers instead of your senses.
And to tell it fully, you still went on keeping that “if one could believe in numbers, it could have been”, while you should perfectly know -at least by the time DFK Europe disappeared – it would have taken a miracle. Did you see any Angel in that room?

By the way, I do not speak about at least the 5 from Uppsala -even if they need to find a good excuse, like any acculturated people have to do – and I will let for the moment Levi out of the speech – he really needs a Spirit to get out of this story – but to call good faith on Rossi, after all the lies he said in all these years (starting from long time ago, far before this Cold Fusion Illusionism) is really something that put a great question mark on (to be really polite) your ability to see and to understand what is happening and what everything and everybody (honest, gullible and non-honest) around are telling you (your senses included).

And a part from that, “I don’t think that it’s neither unbelievable nor threatening that the obtained result be true”

Definitely, you are out of space. First I do not think results are threatening. They would be wonderful if true, matter is they cannot as you (not you, Mats, every body) should write a new physic and a new chemistry along with that. As you know: new findings should not be in contrast with all the previous findings -they should accommodate, while here we should have a shift that would be inconceivable with previous findings (including, but not limited to, the good faith of Rossi)

“As Jed Rothwell puts it — in science, observation is king, theory has to adapt”
Oh, yes, I agree. And where do you put tricks and tricksters in the path?

“Therefore, for every thing that seems odd, unlike you, I think that this might be a sign of a mistake, or it might simply have a good explanation. I call this to be open minded”.
Yes, I like it too. A good explanation, in this case, is that someone cheated. I call this “open mind that takes care of details and of knowledge instead of drinking everything a trickster keep on saying”. But please, go on and give me the explanation of phenomena of this story, Only, remember to keep miracles outside science.

“So, since you’re an intelligent person”
Thanks. I hope I can say the same of you. At least one day. Could you read those numbers and tell us what they mean? Can you read the paper from Andrea.s? Can you understand that a mistake in dummy, as it has been used to calibrate instruments, would lead in mistake in subsequent measurements? Is that too much for you?

“don’t immediately give in when looking for possible explanations to these values. It’s not that obvious that you have a complete understanding of all influencing aspects”.
You’re right, you know? There could be also some other tricks – do you believe? I think I spotted one more, but I will not tell if not needed – that’s my ace as I am sure also Rossi has his own in the pocket…
😀

@Giancarlo — right about increase/decrease. I was in a hurry.
Listen: Cimpy, as well as some others, is convinced that this is all a fraud, and takes anything that seems odd as proof for the fraud hypothesis.
You seem more convinced that the obtained result is impossible (read my book carefully) and that the researchers are incompetent and have made errors, and for everything that seems odd you look for the mistake they must have made.
I, who have met all these people including Rossi and Levi, and have had the opportunity to assess them, I believe that they are competent and have made this measurement in good faith.
And a part from that, I don’t think that it’s neither unbelievable nor threatening that the obtained result be true. It might just be so, and we have to act accordingly in that case. As Jed Rothwell puts it — in science, observation is king, theory has to adapt.
Therefore, for every thing that seems odd, unlike you, I think that this might be a sign of a mistake, or it might simply have a good explanation. I call this to be open minded.
So, since you’re an intelligent person, don’t immediately give in when looking for possible explanations to these values. It’s not that obvious that you have a complete understanding of all influencing aspects.
If the ratio you mention is bigger in the dummy run, it essentially means that relatively more power was dissipated in the resistors during the dummy run, and that the resistance in some way seems to have been higher during the effective run.
First — do we know if the power was pulsed during the dummy run, and if such a difference might have affected the situation? Could the pulsed current then behave differently in the effective run because of the impedance in the coils and the configuration inside the E-Cat? It has been suggested that there’s a mechanism for inductive heating in the E-Cat, which would have to be modelled in that case.
This is just one possibility.
You see, I don’t run to conclusions, and nor should you. Use your intellect to find possible answers, not just the one you really want to find. Then I will be interested.
And I hope you’re not fearing the consequences, should it turn out that this process is true and valid.

@giancarlo
I agree with your assessment, and I was trying to show that inconel changes in resistance are an unlikely explanation for the discrepancy. I forgot that the internal resistor could be made of inconel, not only the leads. Note that nobody inspected the internals of the device, and inconel alloys would not survive at 1400C

The inconel is the material of the coils (heaters). The power dissipated in the heaters MUST BE proportional to the power dissipated in the coils (Joule + Ohm laws) when you change the current (i.e., power) if anything is linear. This is true for the test run (check on columns 2 and 7); so there is no non-linearity when you pass from 1260 to 1410 °C. The inconel works well: it is produced to this end, to be stable in temperature.

But, the same ratio you should have in the dummy run: you don’t. IT IS 3.13 TIMES MORE.
One of the two measurement is wrong. But if it is the dummy to be wrong also the produced heat is wrongly measured (since they say the COP = 1). In this case all the measurement are wrong. If, on the contrary the test run is wrong, the COP is 1 and what are we speaking about?

Unfortunately this TPR2 just like the TPR1 shows inconsistent current waveforms.
In both cases the anomalous current waveforms can be explained by reversing a clamp ammeter which results in underestimating the input power by a factor close to the claimed COP.

I had hoped for an explanation for the TPR1 inconsistency and instead we have the same on the TPR2.
Please refer to this link for a thorough explanation of what I am saying

@giancarlo
I’m mentioning only what is stated in the report. The calculations for the Joule heating only include the copper wires, so any change in resistance of the inconel wires does not play a part.

@Mats: You wrote that:
“One immediate conclusion is that only one of the resistances was used during the dummy run, increasing the resistance by a factor three.”

I was under the impression that the dummy run was made with a reduced duty cycle of the drive power to the resistors, but keeping the configuration the same, i.e. three resistors in delta. Did they change the configuration of the connections between the dummy run and the real one? Because in that case the dummy run only works as a calibration of the thermal cameras, if at all.

Please, refer only to things written in the report. Your interpretations or explanations are only yours. It is the first indication given to peer-reviewer. We have to assume that Eq (9), (10) and (11) are used for both measurements unless diversely stated. (Even if they are wrong).

By the way I wonder how they could measure a current I2 that is half I1
That is mysterious 🙂

@mats @giancarlo
The paper mentions that the Joule heating is only calculated for the copper wires during the dummy run. It does not say how it was calculated during the real run, but it stands to reason that the inconel wires were excluded as well.

And since the ratio does not vary when passing from 1260 to 1400 °C it means that the load is made by temperature independent resistors (check the inconel alloys).

So the system is perfectly linear (in temperature).
@ 1260°C the (average) ratio is 21,68 @1410°C the ratio is 21,86: the non linearity is lower than 1%.
Please check yourself the table values. This is a fundamental point.

A few days ago you asked me where was my wattmeter. Actually it is not mine but their as soon as they measure the power dissipated inside the wires (see table 7). Since the wires are in series with the load the ratio between the two powers will stay constant. You can check yourself that this ratio (column 2 & 7) is equal to 21,80 (average) for any of the 15 files. And since the ratio does not vary when passing from 1260 to 1400 °C it means that the load is made by temperature independent resistors (check the inconel alloys).
Where is the problem? the problem is that this ratio for the dummy run is 68,42 (3,13 times more, very similar to the COP).
So, concerning the input power:

1) the dummy run measurement is wrong
2) the test run measurement is wrong
3) they are both wrong

I’m waiting since last week a reply from Bo Hoistad, but it doesn’t arrive.

The 60 Minutes episode is very old (2009 is I recall) and lame. WHERE are the companies they mention? Where are the products and test results they predicted? If anything, that episode is strong evidence that there is nothing at all to LENR and certainly there is nothing real at all to Rossi and Defkalion.

OK, Fibb. I bet you get minimal if any cooperation and answers. And if so, THAT should tell you plenty.

Another thing: want to bet that Darden never asked Rossi for a copy of his original ecat to have independently tested by an outside lab or university department? Or even in house at IH? That would have the big advantage of simplicity — it has a single phase power supply; you can put a very simple metered source of power AHEAD of it (between the mains and power regulator in the ecat circuits) — Rossi can’t scam that!– ; there is a built in calibration heater and it’s easy to do a blank run (leave out the powder or leave out the hydrogen); you can run a dummy unit and an active one in parallel for comparison; there is a water coolant which enables you to measure output heat easily with a flow meter and some thermocouples. But unlike Levi (!) in his early experiment and Defkalion, you would properly calibrate the system first to make sure you were measuring the heat correctly.

How to do this was discussed at some length with “Angus” (a Canadian physics professor), Henning Dekant (a fan of alternative energy) and me. That was for a Defkalion test which they proposed and then of course, backed out of. By the way, where are they now? Anyone seen a Hyperion around? The test proposal is documented and discussed on Henning’s site:

If Mr. Vaughn or Mr. Darden want some help with this, I am sure Henning would be willing. For that matter so would I at my usual and customary rates, of course. I can be reached at my usual email address: maryyugo (at symbol) yahoo (dot) com.

Hi Fibb. I don’t know for sure but I am guessing that indeed, Vaughn and Darden relied on the Swedish scientists and Levi for vetting Rossi’s reactors. Is that foolish? Uh… yup. But far larger mistakes have been made resulting in the successful scamming of very large companies.

Darden has a JD from Yale so he’s an attorney, not a scientist. Vaughn seems to be interested in helping the Third World and in religion. I see nothing to suggest any expertise in testing Rossi from him.

Cherokee actually does not have a good record and probably has not been a “two billion dollar” company for some time. Here is a summary of all their failures and missteps in the past:

maryugo… are you intentionally ignoring my question to you on october 10 th below? or did you just miss it? please answer it. why wouldn’t tom darden have independently vetted the technology he’s been in control of/owned for the last ten months?

Meanwhile, on the Vortex email list, Rossi’s scheme is starting to unravel. Jed Rothwell still has absolutely no clue but Jones Beene is starting to catch the drift. And he is in doubt. As are others among the formerly ardent believers. Wow. FINALLY! Sure took Beene a while.

“strange OL markers”
Not strange – they mean “Over Load” and that stands for no measure are taken (better say “show”) that one could argue upon.
Do you remember all the rumors about pce-830 pictures in the TPR1 appendix? This time there is no screenshot to look at at all (!) and this is really a professiona way to address previous matters (by the way, another is to change the object tested…)
😀

@Mats
Have you seen the argument by GoatGuy about the material alumina being transparent for some wavelength, he claims that this may make all camera mesurement biased is this a real concern, what is your take on that. Also there seam to be people who have noted that the PCE was showing strange OL markers indicating that the instrument was perhaps not measuring correctly, any thoughts and comments on that aspect as well?

Mats, why do you think the scientists did not constrain the input power? It would not have been that difficult, given the expense of the experiment, to supply all power to the experiment from a known source provided by the experimenters and outside of Rossi’s entire setup. For example, they could have used a precision regulated and metered DC power source to run an inverter to supply Rossi’s equipment. If three phase current is absolutely required (and I can see no reason why it would be at power levels below 1 kW), then use a three phase inverter. Inverters are very efficient.

I can guarantee you that if the scientists had shown that they limited the power input to 1 kW in a manner such as I suggested *and* that they had properly demonstrated an output of about 3 or 4 kW, I’d be very impressed and so might be the whole world.

As it is, the scientists simply set themselves up for another round of arguments about all the things they did incorrectly. And there are many.

So, Mats, any idea why they did not limit the input power by using their own source instead of letting Rossi plug his machine into the mains directly?

Hi Mats! Nothing puzzling at all. On the contrary! This is the first confirmation as far as I know that the technology transfer (from Rossi to IH/Cherokee) has actually taken place as Rossi mentioned in his blog! If IH/Cherokee has full knowledge of the E-Cat and still has not abandoned Rossi, then that’s a very good indication that they can reproduce the effect on their own and that LENR+ is real!
All the best,
Manfred

@mats: Have you any comments on figure 5 in the report? It is interesting, as it is used to show that there is no higher harmonics on the signal. At the same time it clearly shows that the instrument is used outside its linear range, indicated by the OL symbol in all the places where there should be measurement values. Thus the readings are very unreliable, and still the authors choose to use it.

The sample of used fuel the possibility that the ashes were in the hot-cat since the beginning of the test run
Guess what? Someone found Rossi speaking about what “fuel” he used in E Cat in 2012. Very interesting, even if in Italian.
A summary for you: Ni62 and Ni64. As fuel, not as ash. In 2012.http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/neutrino-4/#comment-43879

maryyugo wrote: What Darden means by “we built the reactor” is Rossi built the reactor. Or closely controlled the building and “fueling” of it. And of course, the wiring! LOL! Fact is NOBODY truly qualified and independent has EVER tested the ecats or hot cats PROPERLY. NEVER. Darden will regret not causing such a test to happen.

That is so absurd. You aren’t serious are you? It’s either a great fraud or the greatest invention since fire and you think that, since January, when he obtained full control over the technology, that Tom Darden didn’t get around to having someone else vet the ecat? Really? LOL.

@Mats: There are other possibilities on when a possible swap of materials could have been done. The obvious one is to swap the powders when filling the reactor, i.e. to run it with the “ash” inside the whole time, and only have the “fuel” for show.
The more intricate one is to design the reactor so that even if one powder is used for filling it, another one is coming out when emptying it. More complicated than the first option, but far from impossible.

When i woke up yesterday morning I found my self in the time of quantum energy. how cool is that.

maryyugo

Please Cut Sterlig some slack, he’s dealing with the most controversial and difficult tech ever, and at leasat one device is working, guess which one 🙂

I found Rossis E-CAT via Sterlings website, think I like mr Allen.

Mats,
Congratulations, I have prayd for this day for years, yesterday I had a fat cigar and whiskey enough for a week long hangover 🙂

Now we can start working, I will be the technician installing,supporting and repairing E-CAT tecnology. I’m in school now studying HVAC, electricity and plumming. all components I belive may bee needed in this new field. i live in Stockholm Sweden do you think there will be E-CAT factorys in Scandinavia?

@cosmoskey: I haven’t. One of our readers contacted Björkstén though. Her answer was:

“If the report, after having undergone standard peer-review, is published in an established scientific journal, this is of course interesting to tell our listeners. Normally such journals have embargoes, and we follow our usual routines, awaiting notification of such a publication, if it would happen.”

Have you or anyone else involved in the report or at Elforsk been in contact with the Swedish Radio since the report was released? Seems like Marcus Hansson, Camilla Widebeck and Ulrika Björkstén needs to be answer to their warped reporting earlier this year.

Coast to Coast is lots of fun. They seriously discuss things like alien anal probes and abductions. Also, ghosts, spirits, talking to the dead, demonic possession, chemtrails, conspiracy theories, faces on Mars, cities under the sea, psychics and well… you get the picture. It’s a good program to listen to as a sedative when you can’t sleep!

But then, I guess the great Rossi discovery can’t get time on CBS news! I wonder why.

@Deleo77 — I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening.

@Deleo Read the report! Rossi was involved in switching between the dummy and experimental runs (he did the switch including, I am sure, the spoofing circuit or device). He was also involved in “extracting the charge” so he had every opportunity to put anything he wanted to into the powder the experimenters received. Rossi and Levi and their technicians should not have been within a thousand miles of that experiment if it was intended to be even remotely credible.

Allan is the LAST person I’d talk to. He has NEVER found a SINGLE new source of energy but he sure has found a lot of scams. Just for laughs, ask him what Carl Tilley, Dennis Lee and Mylow are doing these days!

Since you know the testers Mats, I think a good question for them would be, what were the specific protocols for the handling of the spent ash?

1. How soon was it removed after shutdown?
2. Was anyone alone in the room between shutdown and removal?
3. Who removed it, and who else was in the room when it was removed?
4. Whose hands were on it between removal and the arrival at the spectroscopy labs?

If the ash transmuted to Ni62, the game is over. Rossi has the real deal. A detailed first-hand account of the handling of the ash by the testers could put this all to rest. Enjoyed your book – btw.